…and YouGov brings more good news for the Lib Dems
June 30th, 2006
-
New poll shows Ming’s party continuing to recover
The second YouGov poll in the Daily Telegraph in a week has the following shares with comparisons on the poll published on Monday - CON 39 (nc): LAB 33 (+1): LD 18 (+1).
It really is rather odd that the paper feels it necessary to commission two polls from the same pollster in less than a week and then to publish it on the morning of the by-election news. What’s the Telegraph up to?
Comparing this survey with the YouGov poll in May the Lib Dems are two points ahead reflecting a positive response, perhaps, to the more positive policy announcements that we have seen in recent weeks.
What’s been surprising is how much coverage the party has been getting for it’s annoucements on issues such tax links with green issues and the opposition to nuclear power. Normally the Lib Dems find it very hard getting noticed on policy matters. My understanding is that the Ming Campbell leadership has instituted big changes in this area of the party and the results are beginning to show.
After his Bromley bruising overnight there’s some encouragement for David Cameron in the poll. To the “Who would make the best Prime Minister” question he polled 30% to Blair’s 28%. According to the Telegraph Cameron is the first of five successive Tory leaders to achieve a higher rating than Labour on this point. Ming Campbell’s figure of 6% compares with the 18% that Charles Kennedy was recording at the General Election.
-
So the Lib Dems seem to prosper in spite of what people are telling pollsters about their leader.
YouGov provides little comfort this morning for the Chancellor reinforcing what we have seen in other surveys from a range of pollsters that Labour will fare worse at the General Election under Brown.
A total of 16% in the sample said that Labour led by Brown would make them more likely to vote Labour against 22% who said it would them less likely. The respondents divided by 24-23 over whether Brown would do better than Blair.
As I have repeatedly said here Brown needs some better polling numbers on him personally before he can be absolutely certain of taking the leadership. In my judgement Labour will not elect some who is seen to be a loser.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Yes, a cheery message for Lib Dems from this poll. Last week’s YouGov also had the Lib Dems up 1% so there is something of a trend emerging. Absolute figures on YouGov are well out of line with the other pollsters, so I don´t see much point in looking at anything other than changes here.
Interesting that all the party leaders are polling behind their parties at the moment.
And have a good holiday - rather you than me!
after loosing bromley camerons tories are clearly in meltdown. camerons tactic of pretending to move to the centre ground is dead in the water and there will be a lot of nervous tory MPs this morning looking over there shoulders at their lib dem challengers. how long will it be before cameron is replaced by a candidate of the right.
Result of the Lincoln Moorland by election:
Labour - 569
BNP - 254
Conservative - 640
Lib Dems - 96
UKIP - 46
Turnout - 28.05%
Declaration. - 23.06hrs
Peter @ 1: “Interesting that all the party leaders are polling behind their parties at the moment.”
Hold your horses! Remember that the voting intention has don’t knows and won’t votes excluded, but the best PM doesn’t. Factor back in those 23% of people who don’t know or won’t vote, and the levels of support are CON 30%, LAB 25%, LDEM 14%
With that in mind the percentage of people thinking Cameron would be the best PM and the percentage of people who would vote Tory tomorrow are identical (both 30%). Blair is, even now, slightly more popular than his party is (28% to 25%), Menzies Campbell polls far worse than his party (6% to 14%)
Oh…and have a good holiday Mike!
4- they didn’t lose Bromley. They did however have a total shocker.
[6] And bonnes vacances to Our Genial Host from me too…
Here’s a rather morbid observation. In the four years of the 2001-2005 Parliament only four MPs died. This was only one less than the five who died in the four years of the 1997-2001 Parliament.
During the first year of the 2005 - Parliament five MPs have sadly passed away.
Billy pilgrim posted a link to this interesting article yesterday -http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/EPOP%202005/Papers/Evans%20%20Andersen%20EPOP%202005.pdf)
He was mentiioning it re Blair, but it does go into the leadership effects of all 3 main leaders on their Parties. crucially they point out that the effect of a popular/unpopular leader had different outcomes for each party its not a straightforward equivalence .
With regard to the lib dems it would back up the argument that whether their leader is seen as a positive (Kennedy) or negative ( Ming) doesnt make any difference to the Lib dem vote.
Since reading it im not at all suprised by Mikes key point that
“So the Lib Dems seem to prosper in spite of what people are telling pollsters about their leader. ”
But would add that its a point that for the Lib dems (ahem) swings both ways
9 - I strongly suspect that over that time the average age of MP’s has also gone up - Andrea?
“This was only one less than the five who died in the four years of the 1997-2001 Parliament.”
Actually 10 MPs died in the 1997-2001 Parliament:
Sir Julian Michael Shersby, Gordon MacMaster, Derek Fatchett, Roger Stott, Alan Clark, Michael Colvin, Bernard Grant, Clifford Forsythe, Audrey Wise, Donald Dewar.
Btw, have a nice holiday.
9 - one of my tutors at university used to study MPs life expectancies and that sort of thing. It did mean that people would immediately rin him up excitedly whenever it looked like an MP was about to cork it. In middle of family dinners and so on people would ring him up to yell “Sir Trevor Skeet’s taken a turn for the worse!”
There will probably be more MPs dying in this Parliament than the last one. The 1997 election obviously cleared out a lot of elderly Tory MPs who were relatively likely to die, and replaced them with a huge swathe of relatively young Labour MPs who were less likely to die. Two terms down the line the average age of the Commons is presumably creeping back upwards (though no doubt Andrea can dig up actual average age figures!)
Wealden DC Uckfield New Town - Good LDEM Hold
LDEM 328 CON 173 IND 123 GRE 32 - 2003 LDEM 339 LAB 144 CON 143
11/13. The average age in this parliament is:
Con 49 years
Lab 52
LD 46
Others 51
Total 51
15 - Thanks - any chance of averages for the previous 2 parliaments as well? (For comparison probably 1 year in would be best). Much appreciated if possible
16. Lennon, 2001:
Con 48
Lab 50
LD 47
[15][16][17] Aah, the ghouls are out (and in the sunlight, too, very strange) - actually, I’m only posting to practise Tabman’s twisted smiley thus:-
17 - Thanks, not as much of an increase from 01 to 05 as I expected. I thought that the difference would be just a bit less than 4 years.
18 - ghouls indeed…
Tempted to make a huge post about B&C and decided against it in favour of earning some money but I do have one question:
Andrea 15 - 17 How do you do that so quickly? And if the answer is Google it still doesn’t answer the question.
A HUGE drop since the general election in perception of Labour’s ability to manage the economy competently - 49 to 31. The main winner seems to be Not sure/Don’t know, however. (Given there was no Lib Dem option, maybe the don’t knows include Lib Dem supporters…)
Interesting that 63% say they don’t feel they know Gordon Brown.
Have a good holiday!
“I am in complete agreement with the successful Independent candidate at Blaenau Gwent who said that the parties must listen to the people and if they don’t it will be the worse for them. That comment applies to both by-elections. The Liberal Democrats must be congratulating themselves on selecting a leader of experience and maturity,” Ex-Conservative chairman Lord Tebbit
Fine and insightful man Lord T I’ve always thought….
From Jack’s posting at 7.39 last night:
“Further to the above Andrew Kennedy a veteran Tory campaigner having been in Bromley today expressed concern that there was apathy in the core Tory vote, partly caused by confusion over the Tory nomination fiasco and the 3 Job Bob attack. He also states that the Lib Dems are very active. Kennedy predicts a 42%/36% Tory win over the Lib Dems.”
Result 40/38 - At least one Tory can read an election.
BTW, does the YouGov survey usually take this form - lots of questions about who would do this better, Labour or Conservative, what do you think about this Labour vs. that Conservative, and then they throw in Ming Campbell in best prime minister?
What would Ming’s ratings be like if the preceding questions were things like ‘Who is best able to defend Britain’s civil liberties - LDs, Conservative, Labour?’
This is slightly off the subject of the thread, but as pb.com is read by so many with political knowledge someone can help me.
What is the precise procedure for registering a political party? Can someone kindly direct me to the detailed rules?
I ask this not out of idle curiosity, but because I am an NHS consultant in a hospital facing radical downsizing to the detriment of our local population, and there is a view that we should form a party along the lines of Dr Richard Taylor’s group in Kidderminster and announce that we are going to fight the two local parliamentary seats (Bedford and kempston (Labour) and NE Bedfordshire (Tory). There is something of a track record in that an independent won the mayoral election in the town three years ago- pushing the Tories into third and labour in to fourth.
I am further heartened by the independent win in Wales, albeit in wholely different circumstances.
All practical advice and support gratefully received
22 - That must be a very heartening endorsement for Ming Campbell!
Perhaps Lord Tebbit hasn’t noticed that prior to Ming becoming leader the Lib Dems were on 18% (per YouGov) and has now led them to the dizzying heights of 18%.
The Electoral commission:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/Politicalparties.cfm
But if you add the two results together Liberal Democrats got 22.1% in real elections. Aren’t statistics wonderful?
13. Anthony - I stood against Sir Trevor Skeet in 1992 when he was just about the oldest MP and he always looked the picture of health.
In spite of all the Lib Dem posters outside my house he knocked on the door to canvass. When my wife Jacky opened it and said that she didn’t think I would be supporting him because I was the Lib Dem candidate he replied “…and what about you Mrs. Smithson?”
That’s what I call being an optimist!
5 Anthony - many thanks for that explanation. Still the argument between Cameron and his party (”every day I think of ways to change the tories”) is not helped by seeing that they” are not less popular that “he”.
OTOH people can say that Blair is best and still think that either of the other two would be nearly as good… or that Blair is best and even he is a complete disaster…so I suppose these leadership figures don´t mean very much at all.
24: No…and they didn’t this time. The party leader question was the third question asked.
1- If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?
2- Do you approve or disapprove of the Government’s record to date?
3- Who would make the best Prime Minister?
Are Yougov doing a buy one, get one half price offer?
Just a thought…..
Total (Westminster)votes cast Conservative 12,634 (22.4%), Lib Dem 12465 (22.1%), Labour 11,984 (21.3%)
Unfortunately the sample was only taken in a safe Labour seat and a safe Tory one.
Three party politics anyone?
Mike - the story was from around 1994/5, maybe you standing against him took it out of the old boy
20. kjh, I know where to find the figures at 15…and I just googled to find the ones at 17.
Anyway, I see that the secretary in charge of equality issues, Ruth Kelly, declined to speak at a rally at EuroPride. It seems that the organizers had problem to find someone from Labour, but yesterday Ben Bradshaw voulenteered to take part to represent Labour. The Libdems will be represented by Stephen Williams and the tories by Hunky Dunky.
Eh? Surely this poll is good news for the Tories. They are still pushing 40%.
Are we not getting a bit to excited here. B&C was good result for the LD, but (unfortunately) they still lost.
Not sure the LD’s would have done so well if the Tories had a decent candidate.
Morning Wonkers. OK my detailed and insightful analysis of the results :
Stonking good night for the Lib Dems and the Indies. Piss poor for the Tories and Labour. Hope you’re able to get your heads round that intellectual minefield. Moving on :
There’ll be plenty of inquests today and whilst the Tory one promises the most blood on the carpet, perhaps the most interesting one will be the Lib Dem one. And the reason is simple. Accordinging to my sources this morning the Lib Dems thought they’d missed the seat by around 3-4000 !! and had no idea that they were in sub 1,000 territory !!
….. so in the final week a near miss may have turned into a win.
Nevertheless I understand there is also much back slapping that the behind the scenes reforms and more focused leadership within the party is paying some dividends, in contrast to the more laid back offering of Chuck Kennedy.
36. Shh.. Lab lost 8000 votes and the DLDs only gained 1,600.
Just watch the count video on the beeb website - not sure who made a bigger fool of himself Bob or Ben “orphanage” Abbots…
36 We will never know. But Tebbit seems to be blaming Cameron rather than Neill.
35 Andrea: Still gob smacked by your speed. I can’t write a post that quickly, let alone look up the info.
O/T If you are looking in Luke we had a spat a few weeks ago on Bromley, targeting, etc, etc. I wanted to wait until after the Bromley result, but if you are interested I would like to give you some information and exchange views, but offline so as not to bore others. I thought you might be interested as I found your posts on other topics (on which I had little or no knowledge) interesting.
If you can provide an e address I will contact. Can’t give you mine on an open forum as I run an information business which is 100% dependent on email and I can’t afford to attract Spam.
When was the last time the conservatives sucessfully defended a by election - is this a turning point ?
35 - why would they want politicians speaking there?
42 Sean Fear. Why not ??
38 - Thanks for drawing our attention to that. I can’t help feeling tht amid the spin and counter spin we have lost site of the real winner in Bromley - the orphaned children of Madras. Luckily Ben will be able to spend even more time helping them.
After all, it’s what Diana would have wanted.
44. LOL
44 Max.
Is that another Daily Express scoop ?!
41. Portillo in Kensington and Chelsea.
40. kjh, I’m fairly sure Glenda couldn’t be blamed for the Labour performance in Bromley!
41. Kensington & Chelsea 25/11/1999 - Portillo in….
42. Sean Fear, why would politicians want to speak at a Countryside Alliance meeting?
So the Green vote in Bromley was bigger than the Con majority.
Bromley has fueled an amazing level of vainglorious LibDem pontifications masquerading as analysis.
A little calm reflection on the actual result might be productive.
It was a appalling result for us Tories as it reflected an out of touch and complacent local party, but it certainly does not herald a return to the days when the LibDems could take the Tory votes like ripe fruit from a tree.
The combined LibDem and Labour vote declined 64% compared to 2005 and the Tory vote by 51%. So the mainstream opposition to the Tory incumbency fared worse than the incumbent in a lower turnout. No sign there of the drain of Tory support to the LibDems, even a sniff of a move the other way especially when the Green vote fell 455 but UKIP rose by 59%. So the proportionate fall in the Lib Lab vote was perhaps steeper as the Greens perhaps went to non Tory candidates and UKIP probably took from all parties but, considering the Tory candidates Europhile tendencies, more from the Tories.
At a general election there will be a resurgence of the Labour vote, but how much? It declined 81% at the by election but it is inconceivable the lost support will all stay away in a GE.
And for that reason alone this cannot be seen as a straightforward indicator for a GE. But the level of Labor disenchantment may be a factor that must be seriously damaging and the latest Yougov poll suggests that Brown is already at a disadvantage compared to Cameron.
re 50 The Greens fell 45%. This new smaller keyboard is a little tricky on the caps and shift keys. Apologies.
50 - Apparently it was “professionals” from CCHQ who were running the campaign, not the local party.
50 Blue2Win. I think you are correct that “a little calm reflection on the actual result” is wise. But for the Tories it needs to be viewed from the prospect of the fact that this is the worst Conservative result in opposition since before WWII !!
At the same time neither is this the time for panic. In depth sober analysis is called for and in the end you may just have to say :
“The voters - bast*rds …. don’t you just luv em .”
Just realised we rethreaded, so I’ll re-post…
A few points from someone who promised not to post for months (well, I did last twelve hours!).
1. UKIP are not much of a threat. This was their ablest candidate with the biggest profile, in prime eurosceptic territory, during a by-election - when they can focus their limited funds…. and they got 2000 votes. Am I bovvered? Do I look bovvered? etc
2. B&C was BAD for the Tories - no denying it. Ergo, Cameron should get moving - and for a start he should fulfil his key promise and pull out of the EPP and NOW. He is in danger of losing his core vote, not to UKIP, but to apathy and distrust. His core voters need some red meat - and they need proof that he’s trustable - and they need proof that he is sound on Europe, after some confusingly Europhile messages. Expect the EPP withdrawal soon.
3. The Tories in future should try not to appoint angry, crimson-faced mini-men as candidates in by-elections. I’m sure Bob Neill is a great guy, and will be a great MP, and took a great deal of Lib Dem ribbing, but his speech was a throwback to splenetic Tory MPs of yore. Not good. Bring on the A List.
4. The Labour party should start to Google the words ‘despair’ and ‘disaster’. They were fourth - fourth - as the governing party - in a constituency where they were second last time. They are in serious danger of catastrophic meltdown - and the fact that their vote is dispersing to many other parties rather than just one is only disguising this. All Labour MPs with majority of under 5,000 should be booking that mid-career IT retraining course.
5. The Lib Dems should treat themselves to a half bottle of Asda own-brand champagne. This was just a by-election.
47 It is a sign of getting older that I not only can not post as fast as you, but it took quite some time to get the Glenda joke, probably because I’m fast developing the memory capacity of a goldfish. Heaven knows what will happen when I get as old as Jack. Even worse, like Jack, my children will also then be old enough to post stories here about me.
B&C is clearly a good result for the Lib Dems, but before getting carried away, the really significant question is:
“Have the Lib Dems identified a successful campaign narrative to use in the dozens of marginal seats where they are fighting the Tories?”
I am in no position to judge, but if they can answer yes to this, then the result is really significant. If not, then the good result is undoubtedly pleasing but of little real consequence.
55 kjh. What’s a goldfish ??
Jack - I agree to an extent. I don’t think their is any reason to panic as today’s poll showed. What needs to be done IMHO is to bring together Tory MP’s, councillors, agents etc that have a good track record fighting Lib Dems and find out what works. The by-election itself is not particularly important nationally but a defeat would have been highly embarassing and they must be avoided at all costs in the future.
As far as dirty campaigning goes, I’m afraid that I belong to the “hard cheese” school. Of course the LD campaign was unfair and tendentious in many areas; that’s par for the course. You’ve always had below-the-belt fighting in byes; modern Liberals have just discovered effective forms of doing this. Screaming blue murder about it only lets the LDs know they’ve hurt you successfully. The only way to combat is to fight hard, back.
I was expecting a 52-55% Conservative victory; it’s very worrying to see that slip. There are fundamental problems with the way CCHQ run byes that need to be remedied. But I don’t think that the Conservative showing is hugely damaging in the long run, as long as the party learns to fight byes as aggressively as the LDs or Labour. The common thread of Labour woe is the more significant story.
25 -Barry, Go for it ! your not alone….
In early to mid july UNISON is launching a large ’save the NHS’ campaign ( the key date is around the 15th July as its the anniversary of the NHS) there will be events and campaigns all across the country. Unison are talking seriously about possible strike action to come also.
Find out the details from your local branch as the publicity may benefit your cause especially if where you work is being targeted by unions also.
Ps- just seen the headline about the ” NHS privatisation plan revealed” in todays Guardian. Unison is calling on the TUC to convene an emergency meeting. This could be a summer of unrest in the NHS
55. kij, it probably was just that it was a bad joke!
Saw this on Conservative home. Thought that Tabman is naughty teasing the poor Tories:
“Posted by: Tabman | June 30, 2006 at 07:02
Just woken up and seen the results. Awful night for Labour. We suffered traditional by-election blues on a much reduced turnout. We had everything to lose and it is notoriously difficult to defend a large majority in the glare of the national spotlight.
Finally I’ve also just listened to Bob Neil’s speech - wicked!! Well done him - love the mirror analogy!!!
Just woken up and seen the results. Awful night for Labour. We suffered traditional by-election blues on a much reduced turnout. We had everything to lose and it is notoriously difficult to defend a large majority in the glare of the national spotlight.
Finally I’ve also just listened to Bob Neil’s speech - wicked!! Well done him - love the mirror analogy!!!”
But in fact Tabmans post was the one above his name and was not nearly as subtle as the one I had given him credit for. So full marks to Henry Edward-Bancroft, a super spoof and a wonderful, if slightly over the top, moniker.
All Lib Dems, and labour supporters (if any left) should cheer themselves up by reading Conservative Home.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/06/libdems_nearly_.html#comment-19156175
57 Jack: I can’t remember?
As one of those rare beings who would like a more pro-EU stance within the Conservatives, I’m depressed by the result. Neill’s ambiguity on the issue was a minor plus for UKIP, and they could well inflict major damage in a contest where they’ve got more strength in depth (say, Sir Anthony Steen’s seat in Totnes).
59 - As I said on the other thread parties should do whatever it takes to win a by-election and I suspect us Tories are very jealous of the Lib Dem by-election machine. I just think it’s a bit much to run a personal and local campaign and then turn around and pretend their are grave national consequences. The fact remain the same, nationally, the Conservatives are doing better than we have since the early nineties. One shocking local result doesn’t alter that.
O/T (sorry)
I’ve just backed Hewitt to beat Lee (Wimbledon 1.00pm) at 1000-1 on BetFair for both 3-0 and 3-1 for £2 each. I can’t believe these figures were on offer but the bets have matched
Am I missing something here?
Thanks in advance for guidance
Gerry
I see the BBC report from Bromley and so part of Neill’s speech, please don’t tell me the whole thing was so bad as the part I saw!
And Ben Abbotts could have kept his control too whilst Neil was speaking: there was no need to celebrate in that way while someone else was speaking.
The speeches seems to have been better.
66 - Sorry to say that you have just given your money away. The match is a continuation from yesterday and currently stands at 2 sets each. Might I suggest that when odds look too good to be true they probably are, and a quick check of bbc sport might be worthwhile…
65 - Certainly, there are plenty of positives. The targeting mechanism for fighting General Elections is in much better shape, and should reap dividends. Solid progress in local councils should help. Bye-elections don’t usually alter long-term trends; after all, this is similar to the SNP’s near-victory in Hamilton South in 1999, which shocked Labour but didn’t cause many long-term ripples. But relatively poor results like these can stall the momentum that Cameron needs to project a strong, positive, Tory platform, and that’s a danger to be avoided. By-election machinery has to be in good condition to make the most of an opportunity for the Tories to gain a seat if and when one becomes available.
its 2-2 in seats now
Thank you Lennon - a little knowledge is obviously a dangerous thing to have
Cheers
I see Cameron’s now had 4 poor by-election results; Dunfermline, Moray, Bromley, Blaenau Gwent.
While each individual result probably says nothing about the national picture, I’m wondering when the anticipated breakthrough is going to come.
67 - To be fair to Bob Neill I’m sure most of us would want to say the same thing had we been in nis position.
It would be a very good idea if the Bromley Tories immediately put out a leaflet pointing out some of the things Ben Abbots claimed that were perhaps not entirely true. And also pointing out that a number of Lib Dem MP’s have held more than one job. It’s never too early to start fighting back!
67. I left out “in Blaenau Gwent” at the end.
73. Max, to be fair, I think it has not been a so dirty campaign, so I’m a bit puzzled by all this outrage.
The Indies personally attacked the Lab candidate in BG nicknaming him “Oily Smith”, Labour attacked Trish Law for being without experience and suggesting she can jump in a coalition with the tories. But after the count they all managed to keep their control without hysteria!
58 Max. It’s difficult to know where to start for the Tories at by-elections and I know you being an accountant will depricate my free advise, but here’s my non tax deductable hints :
1. Set up a dedicated election unit.
2. Speed up A list reforms, but inclusive of “local” candidates.
3. Attack ads only work where they have resonance with the public - Bromley yes, Cheadle no.
4. By-elections centrally controlled.
5. By-elections are “Events”. Bromley was like a damp Tuesday in Southend pier. Fortunatley for the Tories the Lib Dems didn’t make more of an event in the last week or so, otherwise the Tories would have been toast.
6. Where was the Tory momentum in Bromley ?? AWOL.
7. Where were the Tory attack dogs ?? … at the vets ????
8. Where was your biggest asset - DC . Completely AWOL.
9. Some policies would help. Otherwise others will make them for you !!
There is no denying that B&C was not a good result for us. However I don’t think I met anyone who was switching from Conservative to Lib Dem. The problem we encountered was quite simply apathy. Everyone was so sure that the Conservatives would win that they felt they could leave their vote to someone else.
When out in Mottingham and Bickley I found people in the street saying they supported the Conservatives, and wasn’t it great that we had a leader who was seen as a winner, but they were so sure of the win, I’m not convinced they went to the polls.
I do wonder if the Conservatives had made a bit more of a leadership issue of this, we might have seen a larger turnout of Tory votes?
BTW I think the style of the Lib Dem campaign shows that we have a lot to learn from them. The content however shows that they have a lot to learn about manners. Outrageous content, that was totally negative. The Conservatives were able to make a lot of it on the doorstep - I spoke to people who said they wanted to know about Ben Abbotts not about the bad things he had to say about Bob Neill. Presentationally it was good stuff. Content wise it was absolute tripe.
56. I don’t think the Lib Dems have found a campaign narrative that was different at all. Negative campaigning is simple and effective. But it does make your opponents think of you as the enemy and I think it is part of the reason politicians are held in contempt by the public.
Finally, can I point out something? Although it wasn’t as sound as we might like, WE WON BROMLEY AND CHISLEHURST. And with a good level of vote.
72. Equally, the Labour party has now has a run of truly catastrophic by-elections… Dunfermline, Bromley, Blaenau x 2… PLUS they were were given a mailsack of whup-a$$ in the Locals - which are a much better indicator of general/national trends (and where the Tories did well).
I’m quite surprised Labour aren’t in even more of a turmoil, given what all this is indicating for their longterm prospects. They are gonna lose 150 seats at the G/E, minimum.
A good wake up call for the Tories after the excellent local election results last month and continuing positive polls.
Bottom line,they still won inspite of themselves.
However,long overdue that they learn how to fight byelections from candidate selection,form filling,getting their core vote to actually turn out and to fight if necesary very personal campaigns as per the Lib Dems.
On the positive side for the Tories,Ming gets to keep his job.
73 I wouldn’t do that. You are wasting your time. As a LD maybe I should encourage you to do it, but the only benefit is that it may make you feel better.
a) No one will want to deliver it, they will be shattered
b) Nobody wants another leaflet
c) It will look bad, sour grapes
d) You will hold the seat handsomely anyway at the GE (assuming there is not a successful challenge to the result) and at the following election your majority will be back to where it was.
66 Gerry. You are the Bromley Conservative by-election manager and I claim 630 votes !!
For those who said that By Elections were a pointer to General Elections, they might wish to reflect on that by putting the results in B & C into Baxter. Conservatives get a majority of 2, with a return to 2 party politics - Labour have no seats ANYWHERE!
This shows the real value of by-elections. Returning a new member to the seat that lost one. No more, no less.
81. And yes I’ll admit it, if we’d won by several thousand I’d be singing from the rafters and trying to tell you all that we’re going back to Downing Street next election. But we did win.
Actually, Jack, you can always find something to attack on, even when you’re being very unfair, as Labour were towards Jody Dunn. If your opponent is a local councillor, you should be able to find something they’ve done that you can have a go at.
Cheadle was (for the Conservatives) a much better result than B & C.
This is something I posted last night at about 4 a.m. I think it bears repeating, after a close analysis of the Blaenau result.
What exactly has happened to the Labour bedrock? Where’s their heartland vote? Who exactly is a typical Labour voter these days?
Is it the white working classes? Nope. A lot of them despise Labour for lying about immigration, asylum, crime. Maybe it’s ethnic minorities? Nah. They’re voting Respect, or Lib Dem, cause of Iraq. What about the Celtic fringe? Fraid not. They’d rather vote Nationalist or Independent, it seems…
The solid English middle classes? They’re voting Tory as they have always done - the Tories got more votes than Labour in England in the LAST G/E.
OK, how about the caring urban public sector professionals? Could be. But they seem to be moving to the Lib Dems. The cheek!
This is Labour’s looming nightmare. It is difficult to identify a typical Labour voter any more, or indeed any particular reason why someone SHOULD vote Labour, rather than for any other party.
Perhaps I’m being unfair though. I guess Labour have got the neo-conservative pro-ID-cards let’s-have-90-day-detention insanely authoritarian weirdo vote neatly sewn up.
Btw, is Bob Neill shorter than Dinky?!
Just a thought , we are always pretty unanimous in agreeing the results were pretty disastrous for Labour …. and yet Yougov shows Labour support up a smidgen and only losing 1/10th of its support at the last GE . It does seem and the 2 Tameside byelections are more straws in the wind that Labour support is holding up more in the North of England rather than anywhere else .
Does all this compute and if it does why are Labour doing better in and only in the North .
So analyze what has changed since Cheadle and do something about it?
Only change I can see is that David Cameron has become leader.
72 Cllr Ben. Have to say your earlier post @ 76 was way off the plot. Put simply as other Tory posters have indicated, the voters lied to you.
A 40% turnout in a safe Tory seat is poor. On the figures many tories must have swithced to the Lib Dems and also to UKIP. Again I say this the worst Conservative result in opposition since before WII.
Complacency will only lead the yellow peril to bite your arse again, the result of which is usually electorally fatal !!
85. Talking about him, have you seen his new website?
Look at the photo gallery (the portraits gallery has him with his unbottoned shirt trying a sexy pose and him lying on his sofa) and the first line of his bio!
http://www.alanduncan.org.uk/
86 - That’s probably right Mark. The locals seemed to point that way as well. Althhough it’s debatable as to whether Labour would have done badly in Wales had it been a by-election in Islywn or Rhondda that had come up rather than Blaneau Gwent which was obviously a special case.
… and in the middle of a group of even smaller people (children)
86. Mark - I think you are right that there are signs of pronounced regional variations in voting patterns - this was true at the GE and has been visible to some extent in local byelections as well. It could be that the country is just reverting to type a bit. Alternatively a) the sort of voters who might switch away from Labour to the (Cameron) Tories are thicker on the ground in the south and b) economic factors are at play, with the ‘private sector dominated’ parts of the country switching towards the Tories while the ‘public sector dominated’ parts are keener to stick to the party of the public sector. Some overlap here of course.
At the next GE, could we see 10% swings to the Tories in the SE and London, but maybe only a few percent in e.g. the NW?
Interesting economic news - the ONS has just revised British growth rates upwards for the first three months of this year, and for the last four years too. Taken together they make the growth rates for the last four years really pretty respectable indeed.
Credit where credit’s due, is what I’m saying. Yet the Labour party doesn’t seem to be getting this credit! They are arguably running the economy with quiet efficiency, yet they are in an electoral death-spiral. Weird. So why?
It must be all those years and years of Labour spin, lies, boasting, arrogance and mendacity. Now, when the government really has got some achievements to shout about, no one wants to listen. It just sounds like yet more New Labour guff, and makes everyone feel sick.
A rich irony here.
If the Tories think that the electorate lied to them then they are in an even bigger hole than I thought.
The electorate do not lie, however they somtimes they say things in ways that can be misunderstood. Politician have to listen very carefully. More than 10,000 did vote Conservative - they were the ones who said they would definitely, absolutely vote, even if Andrew Murray was on the TV. The rest will have not been so precise.
I see the new LibDem theme is that the Tories better change our leader if we want to do better. You wish!
Hi Fred , Would a greater swing from Lab to Con in the South and a lesser one in the North give more or fewer gains than UNS would indicate ?
Dunfermline: Lab vote down 11.6%
Bromley: Con vote down 11.1%
uhm, I wouldn’t have expected the vote loss of Bromley to be so close to the Dunfermline Labour one.
92/96 Fred/Mark. I think the 05 pattern will continue with dramatically varied swings around the country and even in neighbouring seats. Makes for interesting punting !! …. but torture for the political hacks.
95 - I think you’ll find that Lib dems are quite happy with Cameron as tory leader blue2win
95 Not just lib dems
Tory reaction to loss of Bromley
Mark @ 96: Depends on the precise swings I suspect, but generally speaking it would give more gains to the Tories. There are more seats the Conservatives can hope to win in the South than in the North.
100 - Who can blame him. Looking at Ming must give Lord Tebbit hope that one day he can be Tory leader.
88 - Jack, Although taking your arithmetical point, I’d rather have a B&C where we at least we ‘won’, than a Romsey, not that either fills me with unalloyed joy.
My guess is that this result will not have a very long shelf-life: the nation’s focus being more directed at our brave boys ‘winning there’ against our oldest ally tomorrow, and then the long summer muppet-free break.
But can’t argue with your medicinal compound @75 as the tonic for the Tories serial by-election blues. If CCHQ and Cameron/Maude aren’t now asking some pretty fundamental questions about by-election organisation, tactics and strategy - clearly there were enough volunteers on the ground - then the Orange pestilence will strike again. Another poor result could seriously erode DC’s most spectacular success which is the party’s restored credibility as a government and Prime Minister in waiting.
(Andrea, thks for your e-mail…reply is my next job ;)!
It is truly hilarious to see the self-delusion & arrogance of the Tories posting here. You did appallingly badly in Bromley, you should have done spectacularly well if the crap you all pour out here constantly about how well you’re doing with the voters was true.
Of course you’re probably too stupid or too mendacious to admit it, even to yourselves.
Reasonable effort by the Lib Dems I suppose, but I’m a touch disconcerted that we’re getting into a shared state of near-orgasmic euphoria over coming second in a soon-to-be-forgotten by-election. Some of the shriller utterances from high command (‘triumph’, ‘stupendous result’ etc.) are just silly, and they’re from people who should know better. Yes, it’s always highly amusing when the Lib Dem by-election circus rolls into town and gives the effete Tories and Labour a well-deserved humiliation, but as someone who believes the Lib Dems have an opportunity to become one of the major forces in British politics, I’m beginning to find our reputation as cheeky, chirpy, by-election gadflies something of a hindrance. At times this by-election thing really does distract for us: it seems as if our principal purpose is to poke the other main parties in the eye a couple of times a year instead establishing a reputation as a powerful and trustworthy political entity more than capable of governing the country. Moreover, remember how one or two by-election results allowed Kennedy to cling to the leadership for far longer than was good for him or the party. Yes, the swing we achieved in Bromley was creditable, but don’t let it distract us. The Lib Dems should be providing far more than entertainment value.
83 Sean. Cheadle was a better result than Bromley for the Tories but it was still a bad result with the LDs getting a swing from the 2005 GE levels. What DC badly needs is a by election against Labour where the Tories are the clear challengers. We’d walk it.
I quoted Andrew Kennedy, a veteran Tory campaigner, last night and his take, pre-declaration, of the Tory campaign and likely result. Kennedy indicated a 42/36 Tory win.
This morning he reflects, accurately IMO, on the contest and lessons the Tories need to learn :
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/06/libdems_nearly_.html
Scroll to Andrew Kennedy @ 11.13 am.
106 - Would be interesting certainly… although you’d have to be careful the Libs didn’t steal it from 3rd…
Colin, go and have a lie down. In the shade.
96. 101. In the SE ex-London, Labour only have 19 seats though, and most of them would fall on a swing much lower than 10% (the six North Kent seats for example are now quite low hanging fruit). It’s similar in the SW - only 13 Labour seats around half of which will drop on only a modest swing. the ‘Eastern’ region has 13 Labour seats as well, o/w all but a hadful are basically marginal. London looks better, with 44 Labour seats to go. But the conclusion is clear - winning big in the SE and London won’t win an overall majority. The Tories will have to do very well in the Midlands and perhaps Yorkshire as well. So how these regional trends pan out in the next couple of years is very important.
ANOTHER TORY CLOSE CALL IN THE ‘OTHER’ ELECTIONS
By Chris Mead, PA Elections Editor
Liberal Democrats had another near miss against Tories in the council by-elections on the same day as their advance in the Bromley and Chislehurst Commons contest.
They achieved a 23.2% swing at Canterbury City Council’s Sturry South Conservative stronghold.
Lib Dems’ performance elsewhere was more muted, possibly because many of their activists were in Bromley and Chislehurst.
No seats changed hands this week although Tories came close from third place at Ruxley, Epsom and Ewell Borough, Surrey.
Analysis of 20 comparable results over June suggests a projected 7.4% Tory nationwide lead over Labour.
The line-up based on 11 wards fought both times by all three major parties is C 42%, Lab 30%, Lib Dem 22.5%.
RESULTS: Canterbury City - Sturry South: C 474, Lib Dem 318, Lab 89, Ind 24 . (May 2003 - C 550, Lab 92, Lib Dem 86). C hold. Swing 23.2% C to Lib Dem.
East Staffordshire Borough - Shobnall: Lab 581, C 441, BNP 291, Lib Dem 102. (May 2003 - Two seats Lab 1021, 968, Ind 527, C 524, 392). Lab hold. Swing 8.6% Lab to C.
Epsom and Ewell Borough - Ruxley: Residents 313, C 292, Lab 152, Lib Dem 66, Ukip 42 . (May 2003 - Three seats Residents 579, 484, 437, Lab 391, 387, 376, C 243, Lib Dem 131). Residents hold. Swing 13.7% Lab to C.
Lincoln City - Moorland: C 640, Lab 569, BNP 254, Lib Dem 96, Ukip 46 . (May 2006 - C 899, Lab 713). C hold. Swing 3.6% C to Lab.
Tameside Borough - Denton South: Lab 900, C 346, BNP 316, Lib Dem 115, Green 47. (May 2006 - Lab 1443, C 903). Lab hold. Swing 4.5% C to Lab.
Tameside Borough - Stalybridge North: Lab 773, C 427, BNP 283, Green 137, Lib Dem 75 . (May 2006 - Lab 1219, C 850, Green 479). Lab hold. Swing 3% C to Lab.
Wealden District - Uckfield New Town: Lib Dem 381, C 211, Green 60. (May 2003 - Lib Dem 339, Lab 144, C 143). Lib Dem hold. Swing 2.7% Lib Dem to C.
100 - Very amusing jibe from Tebbit. I predict a defection from the Chingford Strangler - probably on the same day David Laws goes the other way as predicted by Iain, Rik et al.
Colin, Colin,(1.46) telling people they are stupid doesn’t help. I dont think they are stupid or any more mendacious than the rest of us. We are all guilty of self delusion and in danger of becoming arrogant - just wait until we get a byelection for which even his Lordship can’t craft a suitable “only Lib Dems can win here” bar chart.
They are however mistaken on a wide number of policies, and these mistakes mainly arise because I dont think they listen to the voters.
113. But they are stupid.
Watch out Colin or you will get another telling off from Jack W!
113 And we had one yesterday - in Wales…
88 - Do you think there were Con-LD switchers Jack? I think it’s more likely that the comitted LDs turned out - as they always do - and there were a lot of Lab-LD switchers. And that a lot of the Con vote stayed at hgome (or voted ‘others’). But frustratingly I have no way of finding out, and I have nothing better than gut feel to make my point. Any informed comment welcome.
Bromley was clearly not the Tories brightest moment. But I’m slightly more disprited by BG. The fact that Labour lost BG doesn’t mean that the South Walians are coming over to anarcho-capitalism - it seems the only way to beat a left-wing party in these places is with another left-wing party - even the Lib Dems are clearly not deemed not left-wing enough (though the extent to which this is a valley critique of the Orange Book is debatable, so I won’t push the point.)
As someone who believes that the rust belt has suffered more than most from 60 years of too much socialsim, I find this a bit depressing.
I see that the link at 100. reveals John Junor was once a Liberal candidate. I’m not sure that is something I would have wanted to bring to light, myself.
#77 - I can also easily see Labour losing 150 seats. The question is: Who to? A strong opposition would be seen as the obvious alternative to an inept governement and would take the vast majority of these seats, some outrageously from third place. The Labour collapse is there, but I don’t see a large Tory resurgence yet.
I could easily see the Lib Dems coming from third place in quite a few places - just as they did in 2005. Likewise the Tories will pick up some seats just by standing still as the Labour tide goes out, but it does make a hung parliament look all the more likely.
This hasn’t entered the political discourse much. Conventional wisdom states that the British public don’t like hung parliaments - might they vote Tory to avoid it?
What is clear is that at the moment we are waiting for Blair to go. It may well be that he has left enough landmines behind [NHS IT, NHS privatisation, ID cards, etc] that whoever takes over the ship will be sunk, but the manner of his going and who takes over [and with what purpose] is the key question.
Oh my God! - I am agreeing, (113), with Tebbit.
114. And Lib Dems are dandruffy losers with halitosis who can’t get girlfriends and so they go into local politics where they fondly believe their orc-like looks aren’t so much of a hindrance.
Not sure where all this name-calling gets us. Calm down.
117. Cookie - I’m afraid that once ‘rust belts’ get established they generally remain left-inclined. This shouldn’t be too surprising as such areas in a modern welfare economy tend to become huge net recipients of transfer payments from elsewhere. A large majority of the voters become dependent on direct or indirect state largesse and to use the old adage ‘turkeys don’t vote for Christmas’.
Jack,
One to add to your list from 12:48:
10. Employ Guido for the attack leaflets!
117 - I’m not sure you should be that dispirited by BG - Clearly Labour are not connecting with the electorate even in there heartlands, and they just need another obvious party to vote for. I suspect that a fair proportion of the vote for the independants wasn’t a genuine vote for there type of socialism, but a vote against New Labour. If (and thats a very big if) the Tories can connect and prove they are in with a chance, you could be on the way to a landslide. Bromley would appear to suggest that you aren’t however, connecting with the majority of the electorate.
221,
Thought you had calmed down, surely you havent come back to bolster dave.
Think he will cope.
However losing a few die hards on the right, is the price he is willing to pay to become the next conservative PM.
105 - Orange Thinker. Rest assured, our good result in B&C is not about to ‘distract us’ from the big picture. A great deal of work has (is) going on behind the scenes to ensure we project a clearer definition as a Party, for the voter. Our recent tax annoucements are a case in point. Our robust line on the next level of nuclear reactors (though I suspect on this score you may disagree!) is also picking up traction. Another significant step has been Ed Daveys appointment to chair campaigns with Chris Rennard.
For the first time in years, we also now have a very strong frontbench team with some real talent AND ambition coming up behind. Laws shadowing the DWP, Vince the Treasuary, Clegg re Home Office, Huhne, Webb, Lamb etc. Plus, Ming is very clear on what we need to achieve, and is doing it.
Frankly, B&C was actually monstrously difficult for us. A formally rock-solid Tory seat which was turned - almost to a win.
Despite what some of the Tory posters are saying - we were not able to get anywhere near as many activists into B&C as we would have done if it had been more obviously winnable. I know this because I was drumming up teams from my neck of the woods to go to Bromley. Compared to Brent of Cheadle it was hard graft to persuade people we were in with a chance of winning. Thus, a superb effort by Shaun Roberts who led our campaign.
By the way pb.com posters. We’re recruiting a new campaigns organisor in Eastbourne. Anyone interested, email me. See link below. Rik W, Marcus, Commentator, blue moon et al - you’re clearly splendid chaps but I’m not sure it would be suitable for you….!
http://www.libdems.org.uk/party/people/mr-stephen-lloyd.html
117 Cookie. Looking at the figures there is little doubt there must have been a large block of Tory/Lib Dem switchers.
At any election there is a degree of churn, the more so in a low turnout and a slashed majority. 40% in leafy south London !! Why on a sunny day would Tories not vote for their envigorated party and popular new leader … answers on a postcard to CCO.
People make the mistake in thinking that the electorate vote for parties as a huge block or in a mass opt out. They don’t. Yestreday there will have been switchers in all directions - the churn. Just that the Lib Dems churned far better.
Orange Thinker Yes, indeed. Some of your colleagues seem so busy hyping that they tend to lose touch with the reality of why we are all in politics in the first, as the posts above demonstrate.
Doing well at by elections is not enough. By concentrating on them you simply become a vehicle of protest and a way of saying ‘none of the above’ and that, in the end, gives you no leverage in the national political game. What have the LibDems really achieved in England and Wales from their multiple policy agendas as distinct from some fun at by elections?
( And now I wait to be pecked at frantically as more spin is sent in rebuttal)
224 Lennon. Even if there hadn’t been independants standing in B G then I dont think that the Tories will be the “obvious party to vote for” in B G this side of the next ice age.
BTW it is “their” type of socialism. And yes the people of BG probably do want old Labour policies instead of the blairified conservative, illiberal and ineffective policies of New Labour.
129. There’s NOTHING Liberal about Old Labour….
127 - Jack is right on this one. I did some knocking for the yellow team yesterday. Nearly all the people on my list as lib dems were positive and were turning out but there were a few who were fed up either with the amount of literature of with the negativity.
But we clearly won over a significant proportion of Labour people AND a significant slice of Tories. I had several people on the street and people who were not on my lists in houses I was calling on who said clearly that they had voted Tory in the past but were voting for ‘Ben’ this time.
The Tories probably called it wrong because a large chunk of their pledges that turned out actually voted lib dem this time.
I have to say that I think the dreadful speech by the Tory probably left them thinking they were right to do so!
BY ELECTION RESULTS 29TH JUNE 2006
Tameside MBC, Denton South
Lab 900 (52.2 –9.3)
Con 346 (20.1 –18.4)
BNP 316 (18.3 +18.3)
LD D Barber 115 (6.7 +6.7)
Green 47 (2.7 +2.7)
Majority 554. Turnout 20.5. Lab hold. Last fought 2006.
Tameside MBC, Stalybridge North
Lab 773 (45.6 –2.2)
Con 427 (25.2 –8.2)
BNP 283 (16.7 +16.7)
Green (137 8.1 –10.7)
LD P Ball-Foster 75 (4.4 +4.4)
Majority 346. Turnout 18.8. Lab hold. Last fought 2006.
Canterbury City DC, Sturry South
Con 474 (52.4 –23.1)
LD 318 (35.1 +23.3)
Lab 89 (9.8 –2.8)
Ind 24 (2.6 +2.6)
Majority 156. Turnout 41.29. Con hold. Last fought 2003.
East Staffordshire DC, Shobnall
Lab 581 (41.0 –8.3)
Con 441 (31.2 +5.9)
BNP 291 (20.6 +20.6)
LD M Rodgers 102 (7.2 +7.2)
Ind [0.0 –25.4]
Majority 140. Turnout 31.0. Lab hold. Last fought 2003.
Epsom & Ewell, Ruxley
RA 313 (36.0 –7.1)
Con 292 (33.6 +15.5)
Lab 152 (17.5 –11.6)
LD M Derrett 66 (7.6 –2.1)
UKIP 46 (5.3 +5.3)
Majority 21. Turnout 19.5. RA hold. Last fought 2003.
Lincoln City DC, Moorland
Con 640 (39.9 –15.9)
Lab 569 (35.5 –8.7)
BNP 254 (15.8 +15.8)
LD J Price 96 (6.0 +6.0)
UKIP 46 (2.9 +2.9)
Majority 71. Turnout 28.05. Con hold. Last fought 2006.
Wealden DC, Uckfield New Town
LD J Hey 381 (58.4 +4.2)
Con 211 (32.4 +9.6)
Green 60 (9.2 +9.2)
Lab [0.0 –23.0]
Majority 170. Turnout 32.46. LD hold. Last fought 2003.
Uckfield TC, New Town
LD A Parker 328 (50.0)
Con 173 (26.4)
RA 123 (18.8)
Green 32 (4.9)
Majority 155. Turnout 32.46. LD hold.
Please note:
The figures for percentage change are based on the details of the results from the last time that there was an election in the ward by statute in the May (or sometimes June) elections, rather than by any by-election. We use the figures in The Local Elections Handbook by Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher.
The Party-defending seat is the party that the former Councillor (who has died, resigned or been disqualified) belonged to when she or he was elected not the one that she or he may have subsequently belonged to as a result of any defection.
I just saw DC on Sky. Apart the usual spin that he has to put in, I get the impression he got the message (re reform the by-election machine)
228 - I am 95% certain Orange Thinker is not one of our colleagues but a spoof. Nonetheless, I don’t think there are a lot of Lib Dems here who think that doing well in by-elections is enough. But I am not sure what your point is. Should we just not bother? Your argument appears to be that success is failure.
Bromley was an excellent result. It doesn’t mean that Ming Campbell is at the gates of Downing Street. It does mean that the potential to win over tactical votes and votes direct from the Tories is still very much there. It also means that in admittedly a set piece play, Cameron failed to convince his own voters let alone Lib Dem or Labour ones.
Yes Colin (130) I know, Old Labour isn’t what I believe in but the boyos have yet to be be convinced of the virtues of Liberal Democracy.
Jim There is no evidence in the data available that the LibDems won over any Tories at all. If you had I would not expect the decline in the Lib-Lab vote to have been so much more than the reduction in the Tory vote between the GE and now.
There was almost certainly some churn but that always happens, and if you rely on canvassing for evidence of this then perhaps you best save your money and not add to the bookies’ pension pots.
131 - Then they might have looked at how ‘Ben’ conducted himself (great picture on ConHome) and thought again.
133 - I was very glad to see Francis Maude on ConHome asking for ideas. Sean Fear, not surprisingly, came up with some excellent ones.
Andrea, why doesn’t DC organise a list of super candidates that he could use in winnable seats and high profile byelections?
Well my apparently popularly-demanded analysis is in Philip and Mike’s inbox…. I think it will shatter many dreams, and stun a few of you… I’m a bit stunned myself to be honest. And before anyone starts, I’ll say it again: I’ve never voted Labour in my life….
Re 136 There’s no evidence of the opposite also. That line of Tories staying home, thus giving victory to the opponents was used in 1997 and 2001 also.
Orange Thinker = Guido (again)