Witney by-election

[northwichcat]

I notice Robert Courts the winning Conservative candidate got 45% of the votes - the same proportion as David Cameron got when he first stood for the seat in 2001.

Liz Leffman, the runner up Lib Dem candidate, got 30.2% of the votes. The Lib Dems have never done that well in Witney before, although in 1983 the Liberal party got a similar proportion of votes.

Duncan Enright, the third place Labour candidate got 15% of the votes. When Tony Blair's New Labour were seen as fashionable Labour managed 30% of the votes in Witney, but Labour did do worse in 2010 when they just got 13% of the votes.

Despite picking a high profile candidate (Larry Sanders) the Greens got proportionally less votes than a year ago, as did UKIP.

Does the election result reflect how popular each party currently is around the country i.e. the Conservatives as popular as they were in 2001, Labour only slightly more popular than they were in 2010, the Lib Dems the most popular they've been since merging with the SD, the Greens losing popularity but more popular than they were 20 years ago and UKIP back to where they were in 2010?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't think you can ever read very much into by-election results, especially in constituencies as safe as Witney.

What I find more troubling is just how many Far Right parties chose to stand in Batley and Spen, although a little more re-assuring is how none of them managed to get their deposits back.

 

[northwichcat]

What I find more troubling is just how many Far Right parties chose to stand in Batley and Spen, although a little more re-assuring is how none of them managed to get their deposits back.

I found it concerning that UKIP agreed to follow the lead of the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Greens in not putting a candidate forward but a local UKIP member stood as an Independent instead. Also that one person changed their name by deed poll to be Anti Corbyn!

 

[Howardh]

I don't think you can ever read very much into by-election results, especially in constituencies as safe as Witney.
.

You can't, but it's interesting to note where the votes went - the Libdems and not UKIP. The conclusion COULD be that some disaffected Tories WILL go to the Libdems rather than UKIP, so seats where the Libdems formally won over the Tories in 2010 could go back.
To me that's a hint to the government to go soft on Brexit, as in England the LD's are the most pro-EU party.

 

[northwichcat]

as in England the LD's are the most pro-EU party.

Labour and the Conservatives have both taken the line the public asked for Brexit so it should be implemented. The Lib Dems are the ones saying the public voted to leave the EU, not to leave the single market and we shouldn't leave it unless the public first get a referendum on that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You can't, but it's interesting to note where the votes went - the Libdems and not UKIP.

I think it will be interesting where the next couple of years takes us.

The Brexit vote was incredibly close, with only about 35% of people in Britain actually voting for Brexit.

Although a majority of Conservative Party voters went for Brexit, 42% of them voted to Remain. Similarly a majority of Labour voters voted to Remain, even though the party seems to be pushing for Hard Brexit.

If the Conservatives go Hard Brexit then there's a real risk they will lose those voters. The LibDems are really the only place these voters can go to. It'll be interesting to see how successfully Tim Farron can position the party to pick up these voters, and the Labour moderates that Corbyn is pushing out. I think UKIP are a busted flush, a single-issue party that have got what they set out to achieve.

FWIW I think the people voting Brexit were voting for Hard Brexit, and I think it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. But the majority of people in the UK did not vote for Brexit at all, so the Lib Dems' position will hopefully be fruitful.

 

[backontrack]

If the Conservatives go Hard Brexit then there's a real risk they will lose those voters. The LibDems are really the only place these voters can go to. It'll be interesting to see how successfully Tim Farron can position the party to pick up these voters, and the Labour moderates that Corbyn is pushing out. I think UKIP are a busted flush, a single-issue party that have got what they set out to achieve.

*sniggers*

 

[Howardh]

*sniggers*

You might snigger, but plenty in Witney turned their backs on May. Not enough IMO, but it's a start and the Tories don't have the largest majority ever.

Witney also goes against the current polls showing the Tories have a massive lead...they should really have romped home - not had their majority cut. Labour may well be having a worried look.

As alluded to above, interesting times ahead.

 

[northwichcat]

Witney also goes against the current polls showing the Tories have a massive lead...they should really have romped home - not had their majority cut. Labour may well be having a worried look.

The new person not being as popular as Cameron is understandable but him only getting the same proportion of votes as when New Labour were a dominant force must be concerning for the Conservatives, especially considering Labour didn't get many votes.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's a by-election - and a somewhat unusual one at that because the previous MP happened to be Prime Minister. By-elections often produce different results from general elections, so it's hard to read much into it.

Having said that, there's a strong suggestion in this result that once again the LibDems can pick up protest votes (instead of UKIP) and progressive votes (instead of Labour). Indeed, to me, this result looks very reminiscent of what used to happen in 1980s by-elections.

On that basis, if I was a Conservative, I'd be a bit disappointed by the fall in the majority, but not too worried. If I was in UKIP I'd be pretty concerned. Witney isn't strong UKIP territory, but even so, by recent standards this is a very bad result for UKIP. If I was in the LibDems, I'd be feeling pretty happy about the 2nd place and big gain in vote share. If I was in the Labour Party I'd be pretty worried. EDIT. Oh hang on. I am in the Labour party. Looks worried.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It's a by-election - and a somewhat unusual one at that because the previous MP happened to be Prime Minister. By-elections often produce different results from general elections, so it's hard to read much into it.

Having said that, there's a strong suggestion in this result that once again the LibDems can pick up protest votes (instead of UKIP) and progressive votes (instead of Labour). Indeed, to me, this result looks very reminiscent of what used to happen in 1980s by-elections.

On that basis, if I was a Conservative, I'd be a bit disappointed by the fall in the majority, but not too worried. If I was in UKIP I'd be pretty concerned. Witney isn't strong UKIP territory, but even so, by recent standards this is a very bad result for UKIP. If I was in the LibDems, I'd be feeling pretty happy about the 2nd place and big gain in vote share. If I was in the Labour Party I'd be pretty worried. EDIT. Oh hang on. I am in the Labour party. Looks worried.

If you want to be positive, Labour actually got a better share of the vote than in the 2010 election (I know that is scraping the barrel though!).

 

[northwichcat]

If you want to be positive, Labour actually got a better share of the vote than in the 2010 election (I know that is scraping the barrel though!).

If only there was some excuse for a poor performance like the financial situation caused Labour's poor performance in 2010 - oh wait there is and it is actually the fault of the Conservative party for deciding to hold an EU referendum when they did, not the fault of the bankers this time.

 

[bramling]

I notice Robert Courts the winning Conservative candidate got 45% of the votes - the same proportion as David Cameron got when he first stood for the seat in 2001.

Liz Leffman, the runner up Lib Dem candidate, got 30.2% of the votes. The Lib Dems have never done that well in Witney before, although in 1983 the Liberal party got a similar proportion of votes.

Duncan Enright, the third place Labour candidate got 15% of the votes. When Tony Blair's New Labour were seen as fashionable Labour managed 30% of the votes in Witney, but Labour did do worse in 2010 when they just got 13% of the votes.

Despite picking a high profile candidate (Larry Sanders) the Greens got proportionally less votes than a year ago, as did UKIP.

Does the election result reflect how popular each party currently is around the country i.e. the Conservatives as popular as they were in 2001, Labour only slightly more popular than they were in 2010, the Lib Dems the most popular they've been since merging with the SD, the Greens losing popularity but more popular than they were 20 years ago and UKIP back to where they were in 2010?

It's a well known thing that by-elections are a notoriously unreliable indicator of how things might turn out nationally. So it's hard to read too much in to it.

The Lib-Dem increase could simply be a 'protest' vote from a pro-EU (ish) constituency which everyone knows is fairly safe Conservative. I don't believe this would be repeated nationally, it's not like the Lib-Dems have been particularly high-profile since the last general election, how many people on the street could even name their leader?

I've always thought it could be a good short-term strategy for the Lib-Dems to go for the pro-EU vote, and to be fair it would be true to form for them as they've always been consistently positive towards Europe. The trouble is I don't believe it's enough to win an election, and it could also alienate some votes. Most importantly, like the anti-war vote they picked up last decade, if you try to score off the back of a salient issue, you will also lose heavily if that issue loses salience.

 

[northwichcat]

how many people on the street could even name their leader?

That might be a good thing, if they don't really know him they haven't built up a dislike for him whereas with Corbyn and May....

Most importantly, like the anti-war vote they picked up last decade, if you try to score off the back of a salient issue, you will also lose heavily if that issue loses salience.

I thought it was the anti-University tuition fees (which Labour introduced) that got them a lot of votes, until they formed a coalition with a party which wanted to increase the fees.

 

[bramling]

I thought it was the anti-University tuition fees (which Labour introduced) that got them a lot of votes, until they formed a coalition with a party which wanted to increase the fees.

I was thinking earlier than that, specifically the bounce in support, or at least the enhanced media profile, they received under Charles Kennedy.

Not sure of the statistics, but I'm a little wary of the oft-quoted thing about the tuition fees. May be a salient issue for a subset of young people, but is that really a massively salient issue for a large segment of the population? (I don't know the answer, but I can't think of anyone with whom I work, or in my household, for whom that would be a really salient issue -- there may be some that would like the Lib-Dem position, but it wouldn't even approach being enough to sway their vote).

 

[WelshBluebird]

I was thinking earlier than that, specifically the bounce in support, or at least the enhanced media profile, they received under Charles Kennedy.

Not sure of the statistics, but I'm a little wary of the oft-quoted thing about the tuition fees. May be a salient issue for a subset of young people, but is that really a massively salient issue for a large segment of the population? (I don't know the answer, but I can't think of anyone with whom I work, or in my household, for whom that would be a really salient issue -- there may be some that would like the Lib-Dem position, but it wouldn't even approach being enough to sway their vote).

Tbh I don't think the issue is that of tuition fees directly, more that they managed to drum of the support of a particular demographic partly by campaigning on a single issue, and then as soon as they get into power they drop the issue they had been campaigning on and pretty much do the total opposite of what they said they would do. It isn't the single issue itself that caused the reaction, it was the total U turn and BS from them (source - myself, someone who voted Lib Dem in 2010 and will be very unlikely to do so again).

 

[bramling]

Tbh I don't think the issue is that of tuition fees directly, more that they managed to drum of the support of a particular demographic partly by campaigning on a single issue, and then as soon as they get into power they drop the issue they had been campaigning on and pretty much do the total opposite of what they said they would do. It isn't the single issue itself that caused the reaction, it was the total U turn and BS from them (source - myself, someone who voted Lib Dem in 2010 and will be very unlikely to do so again).

I can understand that, it makes sense. What hasn't made sense to me is the way the Lib-Dem vote collapsed in 2015, seemingly in favour of the Conservatives.

I've never been a Lib-Dem voter, however if I were I think I could reconcile the U-turn with the knowledge that they went into *coalition* therefore they were never going to be able to deliver their full manifesto.

It still seems to me that the swing away from the Lib-Dems was more a natural correction in favour of a Conservative party which had, for the first time since 1992, actually put forward a professional and electable image. Perhaps combined with the fear of a Labour/SNP deal which at the time of the last election seemed a real possibility which I don't think many English (or elsewhere in UK?) voters would have been happy with at all.

 

[northwichcat]

Not sure of the statistics, but I'm a little wary of the oft-quoted thing about the tuition fees. May be a salient issue for a subset of young people, but is that really a massively salient issue for a large segment of the population? (I don't know the answer, but I can't think of anyone with whom I work, or in my household, for whom that would be a really salient issue -- there may be some that would like the Lib-Dem position, but it wouldn't even approach being enough to sway their vote).

I think it's more likely to be an issue for parents and grandparents, who could finish up financially supporting their children. My Gran was unhappy with the level of financial support John Mayor's government made available to students, never mind Tony Blair's and she didn't live to see the effect of David Cameron as PM.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tbh I don't think the issue is that of tuition fees directly, more that they managed to drum of the support of a particular demographic partly by campaigning on a single issue, and then as soon as they get into power they drop the issue they had been campaigning on and pretty much do the total opposite of what they said they would do. It isn't the single issue itself that caused the reaction, it was the total U turn and BS from them (source - myself, someone who voted Lib Dem in 2010 and will be very unlikely to do so again).

I voted Lib Dem in 2010 but for me the big selling point was the raising of the personal allowance to £10,000. I always thought it was ridiculous under Labour that people on low incomes paid income tax one year and then effectively got a refund the following year through Working Tax Credits but only if they did all the paperwork!

Lib Dem manifestos are always quite thorough, which caused an issue when they went in to coalition. They didn't say they'd raise the personal allowance , they said they'd raise it to £10,000 in 2010 and then to £12,500 in 2015. On the other hand Labour said they'd reintroduce the 10p tax rate in 2015 but said no more, so they could have set the 10p threshold at £8,000 and made low earners worse off but kept their manifesto promise!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can understand that, it makes sense. What hasn't made sense to me is the way the Lib-Dem vote collapsed in 2015, seemingly in favour of the Conservatives.

I've never been a Lib-Dem voter, however if I were I think I could reconcile the U-turn with the knowledge that they went into *coalition* therefore they were never going to be able to deliver their full manifesto.

It still seems to me that the swing away from the Lib-Dems was more a natural correction in favour of a Conservative party which had, for the first time since 1992, actually put forward a professional and electable image. Perhaps combined with the fear of a Labour/SNP deal which at the time of the last election seemed a real possibility which I don't think many English (or elsewhere in UK?) voters would have been happy with at all.

Don't forget more people voted Labour in 2015 than in 2010, despite Labour losing large numbers of votes and seats to the SNP. Have Labour ever won enough English & Welsh seats to have around 300+ seats before Scotland is taken in to consideration?

In Cheshire (an area the Conservatives generally do well in) the Conservatives lost the Chester seat to Labour by a slim margin, as well as losing control of Cheshire West council to Labour by a slim margin. They also lost seats to independent candidates for Cheshire East council and then a year later lost the PCC election to the embarrassment of the chief constable who had a speech congratulating the Conservative on re-election prepared but not one congratulating the appointment of a Labour PCC.

 

[Howardh]

Think a lot of the frustration with the Libdems was they went into coalition with the Tories, which I kinda get as the Libdems are (slightly to?) left of centre, but in reality how undemocratic would it have been to let the party in second place get power?

Clegg was in a great place on one hand - getting a bit of power - but on the other hand was in a difficult place.
They didn't get the tuition fees, but they did get the increase in tax threshold. Which affects the more people?
And if people wanted a left wing government, they should have voted Labour, not voted Libdem for a Labour-lite government.
I'm glad to see a recovery, even if it's "just" a by-election, although they are back to winning council seats. If the LD's start to occupy the centre-left, and are strong on the EU, that should be a worry for Labour, especially if they lose votes to UKIP.
Labour needs to return towards the centre sharpish. Did I see someone with the initials ACLB knocking around?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Don't forget more people voted Labour in 2015 than in 2010, despite Labour losing large numbers of votes and seats to the SNP. Have Labour ever won enough English & Welsh seats to have around 300+ seats before Scotland is taken in to consideration?

Yes. 1997, 2001 and 2005!

 

[bramling]

Think a lot of the frustration with the Libdems was they went into coalition with the Tories, which I kinda get as the Libdems are (slightly to?) left of centre, but in reality how undemocratic would it have been to let the party in second place get power?

I honestly find it hard to place the Lib-Dems on the spectrum. They're definitely left-of-centre, but their policies seem to vary between "Labour-lite", and quite left (e.g. anti-war).

I think it's natural that some Labour vote would go to the Lib-Dems since Labour is in such a mess at the moment - people who don't want to vote Conservative have to vote somewhere, and it's not naturally UKIP. Whilst the Lib-Dems can doubtlessly capitalise on this, especially as Corbyn doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon, it's not a strategy that will work in the long-term -- neither is a pro-EU strategy -- simply because both of these strategies could collapse if the public mood changes or in response to an external event.

Thinking ahead to the next election, it's very hard to say what will happen as a lot could and will change -- but as things stand at the moment I'd say Conservatives would poll well but with some surprises particularly in pro-EU seats, Labour will do badly but still hold their core vote, and the Lib-Dems would gain a "bounce" but one which they could lose just as quickly. I can't see UKIP sustaining their vote, but hard to see where this would go -- doubtlessly some will go to the Conservatives, but the more left-wing UKIP vote I can't see going Conservative. Interesting times indeed!

I'd suggest things are looking increasingly polarised. London, South Wales and North East, plus a few other inner-city areas, are looking Labour. Most of the rest of the UK is Conservative, with a few Lib-Dem seats concentrated in their traditional areas (albeit heavily declined from the last decade for example their south-west stronghold wiped out). I can't see the SNP fad dying down in the immediate future, even if Sturgeon is starting to face the reality of government she is very good at loading on other issues (e.g. EU) to keep her vote motivated.

Things could change overnight, for example if Brexit goes sour, or Corbyn is replaced (bear in mind his age) - although Labour still have an issue that there's no one obvious to replace him that is an immediately election-winning prospect. The Conservatives also seem deficient in really quality leadership material, but this won't be an issue for the foreseeable future.

 

[Iskra]

I found it concerning that UKIP agreed to follow the lead of the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Greens in not putting a candidate forward but a local UKIP member stood as an Independent instead. Also that one person changed their name by deed poll to be Anti Corbyn!

I find the whole 'not fielding candidates out of respect' policy concerning. It undermines the principle of democracy. I voted last night in the Batley vote, but what choice did I have? Labour, racists or lunatics? Paradoxically though, it was the biggest selection of candidates I've ever seen, filling a whole page of A4, sadly not many were seriously electable and I've seen zero campaigning.

I was still disappointed that the BNP managed to come second with 500 votes.

 

[backontrack]

I was still disappointed that the BNP managed to come second with 500 votes.

Actually 3rd. The English Democrats were second.

 

[Iskra]

Actually 3rd. The English Democrats were second.

Apologies.

 

[backontrack]

Apologies.

No need. Besides, it's still depressing. I thought the BNP had folded.

 

[edwin_m]

I find the whole 'not fielding candidates out of respect' policy concerning. It undermines the principle of democracy. I voted last night in the Batley vote, but what choice did I have? Labour, racists or lunatics? Paradoxically though, it was the biggest selection of candidates I've ever seen, filling a whole page of A4, sadly not many were seriously electable and I've seen zero campaigning.

I was still disappointed that the BNP managed to come second with 500 votes.

I think it is because it would be very unreasonable for any party to try to make an electoral gain out of the murder of Jo Cox. The result is that you are denied the opportunity to make a meaningful vote until (probably) 2020, but the same would have happened had she still been alive.

I don't think the LibDems are seriously expecting to be in government but the 48% who voted to remain is bigger than the winning party's vote share in any election of recent history, so well worth targeting. Especially so as it is fully in line with LibDem policy, and no other party seems to be willing to stand up for this group at the moment.

We really don't know what the people who voted for Brexit voted for, because the alternative was never made clear (and could never be under the terms of the vote) so the Leave people made it up on the hoof. If only 1 in 25 of those voting to leave had been misled by this and are now wishing they'd voted the other way, then there is no longer a majority for leaving. At the very least the final deal needs putting to the people again once it is negotiated.

 

[furnessvale]

At the very least the final deal needs putting to the people again once it is negotiated.

Fully agree with you as long as the question is, "Do we leave accepting this deal, OR do we leave without a deal accepting WTO rules".

Anything else is simply a backdoor attempt to re-run the referendum because the remainers lost the first time.

 

[Busaholic]

I think it is because it would be very unreasonable for any party to try to make an electoral gain out of the murder of Jo Cox. The result is that you are denied the opportunity to make a meaningful vote until (probably) 2020, but the same would have happened had she still been alive.

I don't think the LibDems are seriously expecting to be in government but the 48% who voted to remain is bigger than the winning party's vote share in any election of recent history, so well worth targeting. Especially so as it is fully in line with LibDem policy, and no other party seems to be willing to stand up for this group at the moment.

We really don't know what the people who voted for Brexit voted for, because the alternative was never made clear (and could never be under the terms of the vote) so the Leave people made it up on the hoof. If only 1 in 25 of those voting to leave had been misled by this and are now wishing they'd voted the other way, then there is no longer a majority for leaving. At the very least the final deal needs putting to the people again once it is negotiated.

Very well put. The only thing I might add is that Witney voted to Remain in the Referendum, although not by a huge majority, and some of them may have been more in loyalty to Cameron, so the LibDems may have been pushing against an open door with their 'hold on a minute' objections to how Brexit is being interpreted by this government.

 

[bb21]

Please use the appropriate thread for any discussion purely on Brexit if desired to avoid taking the thread off-track.

Impact of the Brexit vote on election results are permissible however.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Fully agree with you as long as the question is, "Do we leave accepting this deal, OR do we leave without a deal accepting WTO rules".

Anything else is simply a backdoor attempt to re-run the referendum because the remainers lost the first time.

That isn't very democratic. It's a bit like holding an axe above someone's wrist and saying it's either that or chopping off their head.

It's hilarious how anti-democratic those who scream about democracy when it suits them really are. It's almost like you're worried that a majority doesn't actually support whichever strain of Brexit you personally believe in.