Lib Dem 12391 34.06% 13.90%

      Labour 10591 29.11% -18.32%
      SNP 7261 19.96% 1.03%
      Cons 2702 7.43% -2.89%
      SSP 537 1.48% -0.15%
      UKIP 208 0.57% -0.94%
      3 Others 888 2.44% 2.44%

      Majority 1800 4.95%
      Swing L>LD 16.11%


Turnout was 50.37%, down 9.53% on May 2005. Willie Rennie is Gordon Brown's 
new Lib Dem MP.

You have mucked up your percentages and swings because you have added
the 1800 to the total to make 36378 instead of 34578.

In uk.politics.electoral on Fri, 10 Feb 2006, David Freeland
 wrote :
>      Lib Dem 12391 34.06% 13.90%
>
>      Labour 10591 29.11% -18.32%
>      SNP 7261 19.96% 1.03%
>      Cons 2702 7.43% -2.89%
>      SSP 537 1.48% -0.15%
>      UKIP 208 0.57% -0.94%
>      3 Others 888 2.44% 2.44%
>
>      Majority 1800 4.95%
>      Swing L>LD 16.11%
>
>
>Turnout was 50.37%, down 9.53% on May 2005. Willie Rennie is Gordon Brown's 
>new Lib Dem MP. 

I'm absolutely astonished by this - I expected the LD's to do really
badly, given their recent adverse publicity!

Still, it does have the effect of making it slightly easier for Blair to
lose HoC votes...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett wrote:

> David Freeland  wrote:

>>     Lib Dem 12391 34.06% 13.90%

>>     Labour 10591 29.11% -18.32%
>>     SNP 7261 19.96% 1.03%
>>     Cons 2702 7.43% -2.89%
>>     SSP 537 1.48% -0.15%
>>     UKIP 208 0.57% -0.94%
>>     3 Others 888 2.44% 2.44%

>>     Majority 1800 4.95%
>>     Swing L>LD 16.11%

>>Turnout was 50.37%, down 9.53% on May 2005. Willie Rennie is Gordon Brown's 
>>new Lib Dem MP. 

> I'm absolutely astonished by this - I expected the LD's to do really
> badly, given their recent adverse publicity!

> Still, it does have the effect of making it slightly easier for Blair to
> lose HoC votes...

The Labour Party won't be feeling too good this morning (especially not the 
foot-soldiers in the affected constituency, with whom it's hard not to feel some 
sympathy), but even though the Labour Party cannot say so explicitly (for fear 
of winding-up D&FW voters), this is not an important result.

In a general election, the atmosphere is more "tribal". Those who are more or 
less committed voters for parties X, Y and Z are less likely to vote tactically. 
The party that won last night thrives at by-elections and has done so in those 
unique conditions for a long time. But ask yourself whatever happened to the 
Lib/LibDem MPs for Eastbourne, Orpington or Woolwich. They have held on to some 
of those by-election gains, but they have lost most of them. The Libs/LibDems 
have had so many by-election false dawns that there is no reason to see this as 
any different.

JNugent wrote:
>
> In a general election, the atmosphere is more "tribal". Those who are more or
> less committed voters for parties X, Y and Z are less likely to vote tactically.

I'm not sure this is true. Eastbourne was regained by the Tories in
1992 because of Tory-LibDem switchers going back to the Tories, not
because of tactical voters returning to form. The Labour vote, squeezed
in the 1990 by-election, actually fell back further. [I think it's
crept up a little since then, but it's still squeezed.] The same was
true in Ribble Valley. In Romsey (which the LDs held in the following
general election), the Labour vote also remained squeezed.

Alex

"JohnLoony"  wrote in message 
news:1139554335.960318.135080@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You have mucked up your percentages and swings because you have added
> the 1800 to the total to make 36378 instead of 34578.
>
Indeed I have. Cheers for that, John.

In uk.politics.electoral on Fri, 10 Feb 2006, JNugent
 wrote :
>
>In a general election, the atmosphere is more "tribal". Those who are more or 
>less committed voters for parties X, Y and Z are less likely to vote tactically. 
>The party that won last night thrives at by-elections and has done so in those 
>unique conditions for a long time. But ask yourself whatever happened to the 
>Lib/LibDem MPs for Eastbourne, Orpington or Woolwich. They have held on to some 
>of those by-election gains, but they have lost most of them. The Libs/LibDems 
>have had so many by-election false dawns that there is no reason to see this as 
>any different.

Yes - the LD's can win by-elections, but they normally have trouble
holding them for any length of time, unless there has been a history of
Liberal strength in the area. 
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett wrote:

>
> Yes - the LD's can win by-elections, but they normally have trouble
> holding them for any length of time, unless there has been a history of
> Liberal strength in the area.

or the MP gains a substantial personal vote. Isle of Ely, later Cambs
NE, is a good example. Clement Freud held it from 1973 until 1987, when
he lost narrowly. He did not stand in 1992, and the seat reverted
dramatically to form as a safe Tory seat.

It would be interesting to see what happens to Bermondsey when Simon
Hughes stands down.

Alex

Paul Hyett wrote
> JNugent  wrote
> >In a general election, the atmosphere is more "tribal". Those who are more or
> >less committed voters for parties X, Y and Z are less likely to vote tactically.
> >The party that won last night thrives at by-elections and has done so in those
> >unique conditions for a long time. But ask yourself whatever happened to the
> >Lib/LibDem MPs for Eastbourne, Orpington or Woolwich. They have held on to some
> >of those by-election gains, but they have lost most of them. The Libs/LibDems
> >have had so many by-election false dawns that there is no reason to see this as
> >any different.
>
> Yes - the LD's can win by-elections, but they normally have trouble
> holding them for any length of time, unless there has been a history of
> Liberal strength in the area.

Before Dunfermline & Fife West, there had been 28
LibDem/Alliance/LibDem by-election gains since the war -- 14 were
retained at the subsequent General Election.

I've not looked back as far for the other parties, but since 1964, the
Conservatives have retained 9 out of 20 by-election gains, Labour has
retained 4 out of 11 by-election gains and the SNP has retained just 1
out of 4 by-election gains. So, the LibDems and predecessors have a
better record of retaining by-election gains than the other parties.
-- 
Henry

wrote in message 
news:1139673632.530531.20840@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Paul Hyett wrote
>> JNugent  wrote
>> >In a general election, the atmosphere is more "tribal". Those who are 
>> >more or
>> >less committed voters for parties X, Y and Z are less likely to vote 
>> >tactically.
>> >The party that won last night thrives at by-elections and has done so in 
>> >those
>> >unique conditions for a long time. But ask yourself whatever happened to 
>> >the
>> >Lib/LibDem MPs for Eastbourne, Orpington or Woolwich. They have held on 
>> >to some
>> >of those by-election gains, but they have lost most of them. The 
>> >Libs/LibDems
>> >have had so many by-election false dawns that there is no reason to see 
>> >this as
>> >any different.
>>
>> Yes - the LD's can win by-elections, but they normally have trouble
>> holding them for any length of time, unless there has been a history of
>> Liberal strength in the area.
>
> Before Dunfermline & Fife West, there had been 28
> LibDem/Alliance/LibDem by-election gains since the war -- 14 were
> retained at the subsequent General Election.
>
> I've not looked back as far for the other parties, but since 1964, the
> Conservatives have retained 9 out of 20 by-election gains, Labour has
> retained 4 out of 11 by-election gains and the SNP has retained just 1
> out of 4 by-election gains. So, the LibDems and predecessors have a
> better record of retaining by-election gains than the other parties.

This is just more voodoo psephology from Henry - the rate's meaningless: and 
the only evidence we need of that is that after every one idiots like Henry 
claim they're a new dawn for the third party (whatever it happens to call 
itself at the time)...we're still waiting.

Anyway, what's your methodology, Henry - are you just counting the 
subsequent election in your analysis or a longer term ability to retain a 
seat?  For example, how are you regarding Newbury?  And how have you 
recorded Brecon & Radnor?

Adam

"Adam Gray"  wrote in message 
news:dslpfu$ldf$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>  wrote in message 
> news:1139673632.530531.20840@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Paul Hyett wrote
>>> JNugent  wrote
>>> >In a general election, the atmosphere is more "tribal". Those who are 
>>> >more or
>>> >less committed voters for parties X, Y and Z are less likely to vote 
>>> >tactically.
>>> >The party that won last night thrives at by-elections and has done so 
>>> >in those
>>> >unique conditions for a long time. But ask yourself whatever happened 
>>> >to the
>>> >Lib/LibDem MPs for Eastbourne, Orpington or Woolwich. They have held on 
>>> >to some
>>> >of those by-election gains, but they have lost most of them. The 
>>> >Libs/LibDems
>>> >have had so many by-election false dawns that there is no reason to see 
>>> >this as
>>> >any different.
>>>
>>> Yes - the LD's can win by-elections, but they normally have trouble
>>> holding them for any length of time, unless there has been a history of
>>> Liberal strength in the area.
>>
>> Before Dunfermline & Fife West, there had been 28
>> LibDem/Alliance/LibDem by-election gains since the war -- 14 were
>> retained at the subsequent General Election.
>>
>> I've not looked back as far for the other parties, but since 1964, the
>> Conservatives have retained 9 out of 20 by-election gains, Labour has
>> retained 4 out of 11 by-election gains and the SNP has retained just 1
>> out of 4 by-election gains. So, the LibDems and predecessors have a
>> better record of retaining by-election gains than the other parties.
>
> This is just more voodoo psephology from Henry - the rate's meaningless: 
> and the only evidence we need of that is that after every one idiots like 
> Henry claim they're a new dawn for the third party (whatever it happens to 
> call itself at the time)...we're still waiting.

Actually, If you go back a bit further to byelections since 1945 (which is 
actually since 1951 as no seats changed hands in byelections between 1945 
and 1951), the Conservatives retained 48% of the byelection seats they won 
(total byelection seats gained: 21, held: 10), the Liberals and successors 
retained 46% (gained 28, held 13) and Labour 42% (gained 19, held 8).

All three parties subsequently lose the majority of seats they gain at 
byelections, and over the longer run they lose an even greater proportion of 
them.

Adam

Adam Gray wrote:

> Actually, If you go back a bit further to byelections since 1945 (which is 
> actually since 1951 as no seats changed hands in byelections between 1945 
> and 1951),

Not quite - the Conservatives gained both the Combined English and Combined 
Scottish Universities from Independents in 1946 (both of which were 
abolished at the next election) and Glasgow Camlachie from the ILP in 1948 
(but lost it in the 1950 election).

Adam Gray wrote
> Adam Gray  wrote
> >  wrote [...]
> >> Before Dunfermline & Fife West, there had been 28
> >> LibDem/Alliance/LibDem by-election gains since the war -- 14 were
> >> retained at the subsequent General Election.
> >>
> >> I've not looked back as far for the other parties, but since 1964, the
> >> Conservatives have retained 9 out of 20 by-election gains, Labour has
> >> retained 4 out of 11 by-election gains and the SNP has retained just 1
> >> out of 4 by-election gains. So, the LibDems and predecessors have a
> >> better record of retaining by-election gains than the other parties.
> >
> > This is just more voodoo psephology from Henry - the rate's meaningless:
> > and the only evidence we need of that is that after every one idiots like
> > Henry claim they're a new dawn for the third party (whatever it happens to
> > call itself at the time)...we're still waiting.
>
> Actually, If you go back a bit further to byelections since 1945 (which is
> actually since 1951 as no seats changed hands in byelections between 1945
> and 1951), the Conservatives retained 48% of the byelection seats they won
> (total byelection seats gained: 21, held: 10), the Liberals and successors
> retained 46% (gained 28, held 13) and Labour 42% (gained 19, held 8).

It's nice, Adam, when you can overcome your natural tendency to
invective and post some interesting psephology too! However, I thought
it was 14 for the Liberals etc...? Brent East, Romsey, Eastleigh,
Newbury, Greenwich, Brecon & Radnor (1985), Bermondsey, Glasgow
Hillhead, Liverpool Edge Hill, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Isle of Ely,
Rochdale, Roxburgh et al, Orpington.

> All three parties subsequently lose the majority of seats they gain at byelections,
> and over the longer run they lose an even greater proportion of them.

To answer your earlier question, I was only looking at the subsequent
General Election.
-- 
Henry

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

>> Actually, If you go back a bit further to byelections since 1945 (which 
>> is actually since 1951 as no seats changed hands in byelections between 
>> 1945 and 1951),

> Not quite - the Conservatives gained both the Combined English and 
> Combined Scottish Universities from Independents in 1946 (both of which 
> were abolished at the next election) and Glasgow Camlachie from the ILP in 
> 1948 (but lost it in the 1950 election).

Oh and the Conservatives/UUP regained a seat in County Down from one of 
their MPs who'd gone independent in protest at having to go through a 
re-selection when his running mate stood down. Although the two-member seats 
were abolished at the next election, both Down single-member constituencies 
were won by the party.