Well done Sunny, you called right on Tories coming third > http://kebabtime.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/sunny-says-tories-third.html < I should have never doubted you

A mid-term result, against the backdrop of the worst government in living memory, you might expect a Labour spike. A false figure, granted, but the lack of any temporary spike, even in Eastleigh, suggests that people support more of the same.

“you might expect a Labour spike. A false figure, granted, but the lack of any temporary spike, even in Eastleigh, suggests that people support more of the same.” – Kevin Jones

I would argue that if people supported more of the same, then both Conservative and Liberal Democrat support should have increased. As it is both parties of government have seen their vote shares plummet.

Whereas Labour have not changed their vote share in Eastleigh, this is not a Labour seat, has never voted Labour, and is a Conservative/Lib Dem marginal.

In the recent election in Corby, a Labour/Conservative marginal, Labour won by a margin of 22%, having had a deficit of 3.6% in 2010.

For me this indicates that in Tory/Lib Dem marginals Labour is not the party of protest against the government, whereas in Labour/Tory marginals there is a much greater willingness to vote Labour.

This should worry the Conservatives a great deal, if there is strong support for UKIP in seats with large numbers of Tory voters, then this could split the Tory vote badly. That would be disasterous for the party. Just as 1983 with a split Labour vote was disasterous for the Labour Party.

Kevin:
You’re looking at things through a 20th century Blue vs Red perspective. Which, in fairness, is still the case in the majority of seats in England & Wales. The Wirral council by-election (also last night) is a good example, with Labour winning a previously Tory seat by a huge majority. The spike you’d expect is exactly what happened.

But that isn’t Eastleigh. The fact that the LDs are in a post-election coalition with the Tories doesn’t mean that you can sanely chalk them up as Blue (if they were in an electoral alliance as well, it would be fair enough to do so). It’s a southern middle-class seat where the tradition of voting Labour has effectively disappeared, which is exactly what you’d expect under FPTP.

It will be very interesting to see in exit polls exactly how voter behaviour has changed since last time round: the Kipper vote in Eastleigh is too high for it realistically just to be ex-Tories.

So does it include people who aren’t actually left-leaning at all but voted LD in 2010 as a protest against Labour and the Tories? Does it include traditional Labour supporters who wanted to make a Fuck You All gesture? To what extent does a 20 percentage point fall in turnout benefit a party of devoted cranks? And so on…

Overlapped with (and agree with) Alun. The important question for Lib Dem survival is the proportion of previous LD voters compared to previous Con voters being lost to UKIP in LD/Con marginals. If it’s low, then ironically enough, the LDs will be among the main beneficiaries of the failure of the AV referendum.

I think that the Conservatives will be in a great deal of distress over this.

We can see that UKIP have beaten the Conservatives. Personally I think this has happened because David Cameron made a huge error by letting his fear of UKIP dictate policy on the European Union. It is obvious that his renegotiating/referendum plan was thought up because he feared UKIP. However by creating policy so obviously as a consequence of his fear, he has simply turned UKIP into a very powerful mover and shaker and a party worth voting for.

The Conservative Eurosceptics might say that Cameron is not skeptical enough, they will point to the UKIP vote and say, look at that, you need to be even more skeptical. I don’t know if Cameron is capable of seeing the mistake he has made. If he becomes even more skeptical, then UKIP will become even more powerful and not less.

@Patrick – as well as that there’s also the possibility that this might be the result of the relatively recent vote for same sex marriage. I recall a number of Tories panicking because they’d been outright told that Cameron ‘pushing through’ same sex marriage was the straw that broke the camels back among their traditional voters. UKIP, of course, offered a clear alternative on that position.

It would be a mistake to think that the UKIP vote has much to do with Europe – UKIP voters (as opposed to activists) tend to place the EU as a minor issue when polled. Their key concerns are a combination of “I hate politicians”, “I hate immigrants”, and “I wish it was the 1950s”. Focusing on the EU aspect is a mistake that the Tory party may well also make, but a mistake nonetheless.

All parties: This result is as good as can be expected under difficult circumstances. These are trying times and we will learn lessons and redouble our efforts. The result is an unmitigated disaster for our opponents.

The electorate: We hate the fucking lot of you

The trouble with bye-elections is

1) They are not like geneeral elections. People feel they can do what they feel like without regard for the consequences.
2) They are always peculiar.
3) You might as well study the tea leaves (that’s not meant to be rhyming slang).

@ 9

Heh.

They were pushed into third place because voters shifted to UKIP – an even more rightwing party.

Labour came fourth – with about a third of the votes UKIP got.

Why are you celebrating a shift to the right?

In case of lingering doubts about the competence of the Prime Minister, try this Reuters news bulletin of Friday morning:

(Reuters) – The risk that Britain is entering its third recession in four years grew on Friday with figures showing that manufacturing shrank unexpectedly last month and mortgage approvals for home buyers dropped in January.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/01/uk-britain-economy-idUKBRE9200DY20130301

@ 12 Shatterface

A split in the right-wing vote is well worth celebrating. The Tories are already incapable of winning a majority because they can’t attract enough voters from the centre ground. If they start losing right-wing voters too, they’re stuffed.

Unless something radical happens – like an alliance between UKIP and a post-Cameron, populist right-wing Tory party – I think this will leave the Right weaker rather than stronger.

Great result for UKIP.

Cameron needs to bring the EU referendum forward to before the GE in 2015.

He also needs to drop the ridiculous ‘gay marriage’ bill.

This academic discussion is all very interesting, but far more interesting – and frankly weird – is
the exit of Maria Hutchings from the count after she had lost. It almost looks like those three around her were going to wrap her in a blanket. Honestly, I wouldn’t have been surprised to learn that she was being taken out to an ambulance. They certainly seemed keen that she shouldn’t say owt. I reckon that they were probably crapping themselves in case she did. I mean, she’s got form what with the MMR conspiracy stuff and all, maybe they were scared that losing might tip over the edge. And if that happened they wouldn’t have wanted her going off in front of the press eh? She might’ve made a policy statement or summat.

I dunno what was going on there, but that expression on her face. It reminded me of Gordon Brown’s face on that other odd video, y’know, the one where he did the strange smirking thing where he looked like the child-catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I mean, if I was a copper then I’d suspect she’d been at the whacky baccy.

Not that I’ve got anything against weed mind, it’s just that I don’t see why politicians should be able to have a toke if we’re not allowed to. I reckon that plod should set up a drugs unit to check out politicians. Look at the mad ideas they come out with. My mum talks more sense than they do, and she’s mad as a box of fucking frogs! The only other time I’ve heard such shite as they come out with is from the mouths of glue-sniffers. And that’s only when they’re on a bad one. How politicians can keep it up every day I do not know.

As for the Lib Dems winning the erection – well it was a cock up (geddit?) – well I suppose some scumbag had to win it didn’t they? Sadly there isn’t a system whereby all of them can lose. Except for in revolutions, but then you just get another bunch who are usually twice as bad. If we had that here they’d probably expect me to make pig iron for no pay and call it my patriotic duty or some such crap. UKIP coming second is ammusing too. At least it pisses off everyone in all the other parties. And the more pissed off the better I say. They’ve pissed me off for long enough, so I’m glad that they’re all feeling shit about something for a change.

@ 9 Schmidty

We hate the fucking lot of you

That sums me up.

Reflections before I read the comment thread:

1. Faustian bargains in backfire shocker: this Coalition lark has completely buggered the Liberal Democrats.

2. Is there likely to be any swing data around? (i.e. how many LibDem voters did UKIP get vs. how many Tory voters, and what the hell drove the massive expansion of the ‘other’ category?)

3. That’s surprisingly good turnout for a by-election, even given the current fundamentals.

Right, off to read the comments *dons asbestos underwear*

Kevin Jones @2:

A mid-term result, against the backdrop of the worst government in living memory

That term is typically parsed as going back between 80 and 100 years. I think one can make arguments for at least two governments in that time having been much worse than this one. Now, if you’d said the worst Chancellor in living memory, you might have been right. I think even Lamont wasn’t as bad as Osbourne, and possibly only Chamberlain was.

Shatterface:

Why are you celebrating a shift to the right?

GO:

A split in the right-wing vote is well worth celebrating. The Tories are already incapable of winning a majority because they can’t attract enough voters from the centre ground. If they start losing right-wing voters too, they’re stuffed.

This right here. The British left has suffered for bloody years from the fact that Labour aren’t in any way liberal and the Liberals / Democrats are concerned primarily with the middle-class. That split the ‘left-wing’ vote and allowed the Tories much more electoral success than they ever should have given their actual support base as a proportion of the country.

If UKIP become the Tories’ LibDems, our polity can but gain from it.

However, I do want to take one issue with GO: the point about the Tories isn’t that they can’t win a majority; there are definitely electoral circumstances where they could, in our deeply perverse system. It’s that the Tories aren’t a majority, or even a plurality, and if their natural voting base splits it might actually place them out of reach of a Parliamentary majority.

Which brings up a truly scary thought. The ConLib coalition has been … problematic, but can you imagine the likely depravity of a governing coalition of Con/UKIP?

*shudder*

@ 12 Shatterface

A split in the right-wing vote is well worth celebrating. The Tories are already incapable of winning a majority because they can’t attract enough voters from the centre ground. If they start losing right-wing voters too, they’re stuffed.

If they were losing rightwing voters to the Liberals, yes, but they are losing them to UKIP. You really think a future coalition between the Conservatives and UKIP is a good thing? Or that a rightwing shift in Conservative policy to recapture UKIP votes is a good thing?

Shatterface:

We both have similar concerns, but I do see the split in the right-wing vote as good. The split in the left-wing vote helped keep the Tories in power for 18 years. It is possible, but not guaranteed, that the effect here will be that UKIP start attracting a lot of Tory votes (resulting in less elected Tories) without actually winning a lot of seats (less elected UKIP: less chance of a right-wing government). That’s more or less what the LDs did to Labour in the 80s.

possibly only Chamberlain was

Are you saying that Neville Chamberlain was the worst Chancellor of the last 100 years? On what possible basis? His record as Chancellor was remarkably good – certainly better than Churchill’s. He was stronger than (for example) Thorneycroft, less corrupt than Maudling (as in, not corrupt), his record had no serious policy failures (unlike Lamont, Healey, Snowden and many many others). He became Chancellor in the depths of the Great Depression and returned Britain to growth within two years – during which time he also brought the budget into surplus.

GO

“You really think a future coalition between the Conservatives and UKIP is a good thing? Or that a rightwing shift in Conservative policy to recapture UKIP votes is a good thing?”

I know what you mean, but we’re a long way from UKIP having the parliamentary seats to make them a potential coalition partner.

Look at it this way: if you were a Tory and saw Labour losing votes to (say) Respect, would you be quaking at the resurgence of the left? Terrified by the prospect of a grand Socialist Coalition? Fearful of a hard-left Labour manifesto at the next election? Or would you be rubbing your hands, thinking ‘great – the more that lot fight among themselves, the better our chances of winning the next election’?

TimJ @20:

Ok, fair point. I pulled a name out of my ass from the interwar period and I suspect I’m quite biased against Chamberlain in general

Out of interest, how would you rate Osbourne against Healey and company?

22 – you picked a candidate for the *best* Chancellor of the past 100 years…

It may not be entirely fair to rate Osborne on the basis of half a term in the job – half a term into Healey’s Chancellorship inflation was running at 20% and the UK was about to negotiate an emergency loan from the IMF.

It really is also only fair to compare him to recession Chancellors – the job is fundamentally different to boomtime bods. So, he’s better than Maudling (classic demand mismanagement); much better than Barber (the Tory management of the economy in 70-74 must be a candidate for the worst in UK history); he’s better than Churchill because he at least understands the arguments he’s making; he’s better than Snowden because he is (believe it or not) much less doctrinaire in his policy; and he’s better than Lamont (for lots of reasons).

Not as good as Darling (a much less effective communicator apart from anything else, plus a much less clearly defined strategy). Probably worse than Howe (though if you’d passed judgement on Geoffrey Howe in 1982…). Healey’s an interesting one, because Healey’s principal fight was with the left of his party – the late 70s economy was a disastrous mess, but it’s fair to say that this was more despite Healey than because of him.

TimJ:

It may not be entirely fair to rate Osborne on the basis of half a term in the job

Fair.

he’s better than Maudling (classic demand mismanagement)

o.0 You are arguing that Osbourne has not been mis-managing demand? I may be completely bewildered here, but it very much looks to me (and the IMF, and Paul Krugman, and Ben Bernanke among others) as though Osbourne took a steady if un-spectacular economic recovery from a severe finance-driven demand shock, and did everything he could to drive down aggregate demand, starting by raising the most regressive tax he could find by 5%. I may have misunderstood your terminology, though; or did you mean ‘managing demand’ in the sense of ‘planned economy’?

much better than Barber (the Tory management of the economy in 70-74 must be a candidate for the worst in UK history)

Hmmmm. Yes. You’re absolutely right, and I did know about Barber. I just tend to blame the 1970s on externalities more than I do on govt policy, but you’re entirely right that Barber was execrable.

he’s better than Churchill because he at least understands the arguments he’s making

Not convinced I agree on that point, as it happens, but I couldn’t prove it. It has seemed to me all along that Osbourne is cut & pasting his economic talking points rather than actually understanding them. On the other hand, one could potentially make the same case of me, based on my public writing. On the first hand, I’m not Chancellor.

he’s better than Snowden because he is (believe it or not) much less doctrinaire in his policy; and he’s better than Lamont (for lots of reasons).

Snowden, yes, I can see that: as I argued recently over in that opinion piece, Osbourne is not imo ideological or doctrinaire, so much as heavily committed to particular resentments and habits of the Tory classes. Axiomatically wrong, rather than intellectually wrong, iyswim.

How many of Lamont’s travails were his own fault? Clearly some… My personal feeling is that Lamont didn’t really have any grounds to know any better, really, but Cameron and Osbourne should know better; not least because they have the example of Lamont.

Healey’s an interesting one, because Healey’s principal fight was with the left of his party – the late 70s economy was a disastrous mess, but it’s fair to say that this was more despite Healey than because of him.

That’s how I’d understood Healey, yes. Thanks for the answer:)

John B why don’t you blog more, man

o.0 You are arguing that Osbourne has not been mis-managing demand?

Maudling took a basically stable economy in 1963 and immediately fucked it up as part of a ‘dash for growth’ (basically by slashing consumption taxes and cutting interest rates in 1963). There’s a respectable argument that it was the Maudling 63 budget that led to all the late-sixties sterling crises (and Callaghan’s devaluation).

Osborne’s inheritance was much, much worse. It’s the difference between making unforced errors and forced ones – that’s inevitably going to be a value judgement. Also, Osborne’s not personally corrupt, whereas Maudling was so, points in his favour.

Shouldn’t the headline read:

“My part won, says Lib Dem backer Sunny Hundal” ?

Ahem, if I may? – http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/1427/after-eastleigh

Sunny: never let it be said I don’t deliver on your requests

Never mind, the Conservatives are already hitting back. From the BBC website:

Further big cuts in defence spending will lead to the loss of the UK’s armed forces capability, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has warned.

Things were “extremely taut” after the biggest cuts since 1991, he said ahead of the chancellor’s spending review.

He told the BBC he would be “fighting the corner for my budget and defence”.

The Ministry of Defence said while budgets for 2015/2016 onwards had yet to be set, it had been promised a 1% annual increase in equipment spending.

Britain currently spends around £34bn a year on defence. [BBC website 2 March 2013]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21638902

Hammond wants the welfare budget cut back instead. By media reports, that is very popular on the Conservative back benches.

If we assume that UKIP has any organisation, this will be a fascinating seat to observe at the next general election. LibDems have a big Labour vote to squeeze tactically, which they have not done to completion. There are thousands of Labour tactical votes on the table.

If UKIP can harden and retain their votes, they have thousands of Tories to entertain. If UKIP HQ understands that this is the make or break moment, they have a chance of taking the seat. They need to act like the Greens in Brighton and throw all of their resources into it.