this was a stupendous result with a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives,
despite what Gordon Brown tried to claim.

It was a better result than many expected, especially bearing in mind the
depths to which Labour (and one or two others, including one minor player)
sank in their campaigning -- not just in their literature but also on the
doorstep, according to feedback from the electors themselves, I gather.

My favourite platform name was the "None of the Above Party" -- though
only 59 of the more than 34,000 who voted put their cross in that box, so
perhaps that oft-mooted concept (which this was obviously intended to make
provision for and show strength of feeling) is not anywhere near as
popular an alternative in practice as some like to suggest.

I certainly intend to cite that result whenever anyone uses the lack of a
"None of the above" box as a reason they don't bother to vote...

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

John M Ward wrote:

> this was a stupendous result with a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives,
> despite what Gordon Brown tried to claim.
> It was a better result than many expected, especially bearing in mind the
> depths to which Labour (and one or two others, including one minor player)
> sank in their campaigning -- not just in their literature but also on the
> doorstep, according to feedback from the electors themselves, I gather.
> My favourite platform name was the "None of the Above Party" -- though
> only 59 of the more than 34,000 who voted put their cross in that box, so
> perhaps that oft-mooted concept (which this was obviously intended to make
> provision for and show strength of feeling) is not anywhere near as
> popular an alternative in practice as some like to suggest.
> I certainly intend to cite that result whenever anyone uses the lack of a
> "None of the above" box as a reason they don't bother to vote...

A very good result for the whole country, not just the people of that 
constituency.

Mind you, I'm not enamoured of this new-found tendency to count the next day. 
That result would have been better at 02:30 am.

In article ,
   JNugent  wrote:
> John M Ward wrote:

> > this was a stupendous result [...]

> A very good result for the whole country, not just the people of that
> constituency.

Well, yes -- but I was keeping to the title of this group in concentration
on the by-election itself  :-)

> Mind you, I'm not enamoured of this new-found tendency to count the
> next day.

I'm not keen on it either, and cannot see the point.  It was never a
problem in the past to begin the count as soon as the polling stations
closed and the ballot boxes had been taken (rushed?) to the Count.  What's
the problem now, all of a sudden?

> That result would have been better at 02:30 am.

Even better at 1.30 am (!)

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

John M Ward wrote:

> I'm not keen on it either, and cannot see the point.  It was never a
> problem in the past to begin the count as soon as the polling stations
> closed and the ballot boxes had been taken (rushed?) to the Count.  What's
> the problem now, all of a sudden?

The official reason given is the large number of postal votes in the 
constituency, with a lot arriving on polling day itself. Plus they cited the 
cost.

John M Ward wrote:

> My favourite platform name was the "None of the Above Party" -- though
> only 59 of the more than 34,000 who voted put their cross in that box, so
> perhaps that oft-mooted concept (which this was obviously intended to make
> provision for and show strength of feeling) is not anywhere near as
> popular an alternative in practice as some like to suggest.

> I certainly intend to cite that result whenever anyone uses the lack of a
> "None of the above" box as a reason they don't bother to vote...

Much as I'd like to, I don't think you can take their presence on the ballot 
paper as a killer argument on this one.

Firstly they weren't actually on the ballot paper as "None Of The Above" 
(that phrase is actually banned in the registration legislation) but as 
"NOTA". So you'd have to be aware of what that stands for. There are umpteen 
different versions of "reject all" options flying around though the one I've 
seen the most is "Re-Open Nominations" or "RON" which stems from student 
elections (and Norwich is a university town - indeed there are tales of 
chaos about RON in past UEA students' union elections).

Secondly you'd need to be aware they were on the paper at all. Most voter do 
not look at statements of candidates standing and fringe parties rarely have 
the resources to get leaflets to all votes (and of course a lot of people 
just bin them, especially in a by-election when TONNES come through the 
door) so they only find out about the fringe parties when they get to the 
polling station.

In article , john@acornusers.org (John M 
Ward) wrote:

> this was a stupendous result with a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives,
> despite what Gordon Brown tried to claim.
> 
> It was a better result than many expected, especially bearing in mind
> the depths to which Labour (and one or two others, including one minor 
> player) sank in their campaigning -- not just in their literature but 
> also on the doorstep, according to feedback from the electors 
> themselves, I gather.
> 
> My favourite platform name was the "None of the Above Party" -- though
> only 59 of the more than 34,000 who voted put their cross in that box,
> so perhaps that oft-mooted concept (which this was obviously intended to
> make provision for and show strength of feeling) is not anywhere near as
> popular an alternative in practice as some like to suggest.
> 
> I certainly intend to cite that result whenever anyone uses the lack of
> a "None of the above" box as a reason they don't bother to vote...

Apart from a few flyposted notices that candidate didn't really run a 
campaign. Craig Murray must have spent a small fortune on his 953 votes 
judging by the efforts I saw. I think one of the Indies did worst. I saw 
an expensively printed leaflet delivered in a letter box for Holden or 
Baggs - they got 166 and 23 votes respectively, not that anyone exactly 
got value for money.

On a different point, is the new MP the first one ever to be named "Chloe"?

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

wrote:

> On a different point, is the new MP the first one ever to be named 
> "Chloe"?

Yes

Chris

"John M Ward"  wrote in message 
news:507fef405fjohn@acornusers.org...
> this was a stupendous result with a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives,
> despite what Gordon Brown tried to claim.

This is a good example of how misleading the usual measure of swing can be. 
The Labour share of the vote fell by 26.7%, but the Conservative increase 
was only 6.29%, so to claim a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives is patent 
nonsense. Both UKIP (up 9.45%) and the Green Party (up 7.08%) gained more 
than the Conservatives did. While the fall in the Labour vote was 
spectacular, the Conservative gain was rather paltry as by-elections go.
-- 
David North

In article ,
   Tim Roll-Pickering  wrote:
> John M Ward wrote:

> > My favourite platform name was the "None of the Above Party" --
> > though only 59 of the more than 34,000 who voted put their cross in
> > that box, so perhaps that oft-mooted concept (which this was
> > obviously intended to make provision for and show strength of
> > feeling) is not anywhere near as popular an alternative in practice
> > as some like to suggest.

> > I certainly intend to cite that result whenever anyone uses the lack
> > of a "None of the above" box as a reason they don't bother to vote...

> Much as I'd like to, I don't think you can take their presence on the
> ballot paper as a killer argument on this one.

That's a shame.  There doesn't seem to have been much point otherwise.

[The rest snipped from here, but kept on permanent file for reference]

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

In article ,
    wrote:
> In article , john@acornusers.org (John M 
> Ward) wrote:
> > This was a stupendous result with a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives,
> > despite what Gordon Brown tried to claim.

[the rest of mine snipped]

> Apart from a few flyposted notices that candidate didn't really run a
> campaign. Craig Murray must have spent a small fortune on his 953 votes
> judging by the efforts I saw.

My sources say that his was a "truly disgusting" campaign, and with some
"laughable" literature.  I have never been impressed by Murray, despite
the good things said about him by some commentators, and perhaps this
by-election has clarified why that is.

> I think one of the Indies did worst. I saw an expensively printed
> leaflet delivered in a letter box for Holden or Baggs - they got 166
> and 23 votes respectively, not that anyone exactly got value for money.

There is quite a big gap between the four/five-figure vote counts of the
"top five" and the next four down, and again from there to the bottom
three who achieved fewer than a hundred votes apiece.  This three-zone
split is interesting to note, though probably of no great significance
beyond that.

> On a different point, is the new MP the first one ever to be named
> "Chloe"?

Apparently so.  Then again, I suspect that Tooting's MP was the first to
be named Sadiq  :-)

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

David North wrote:

> "John M Ward"  wrote:

>> this was a stupendous result with a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives,
>> despite what Gordon Brown tried to claim.

> This is a good example of how misleading the usual measure of swing can 
> be. The Labour share of the vote fell by 26.7%, but the Conservative 
> increase was only 6.29%, so to claim a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives 
> is patent nonsense. Both UKIP (up 9.45%) and the Green Party (up 7.08%) 
> gained more than the Conservatives did. While the fall in the Labour 
> vote was spectacular, the Conservative gain was rather paltry as 
> by-elections go.

Let's all hope for many more such "paltry" gains for the Conservatives at the 
General Election, eh?

Even more seriously, are you so unable to give credit where it's due that you 
overlook the fact that swings in by-elections (even those back in the days 
when the Libs used to do well at them) have always been calculated on the 
same basis?

John M Ward wrote:

> There is quite a big gap between the four/five-figure vote counts of the
> "top five" and the next four down, and again from there to the bottom
> three who achieved fewer than a hundred votes apiece.  This three-zone
> split is interesting to note, though probably of no great significance
> beyond that.

It possibly shows a split between "main parties" and the usual "others", 
what are emerging as the main "other others" and the insignificance of the 
"other other others".

There was a time when the Monster Raving Loonies regularly did so well in 
by-elections that they were the main "anti main parties" vote and some of 
the "others" (UKIP, Green, BNP) would sit out some by-elections rather than 
risk been Bootled. Now the OMRLP has shrunk to an insignificant force even 
in by-elections amidst a plethora of fringe parties.

What also stands out is that single-issue campaigners taking on either the 
expenses scandal or outrage over the way perceived good MPs have been hung 
out to dry just aren't getting traction, especially with the media and 
celebrities needed to give them real credibility. Some of this may be down 
to Murray's own campaign (and baggage), and obviously there wasn't a sitting 
MP with claims to attack, but it doesn't bode too well for crusades in other 
seats.

In article ,
   David North  wrote:
> "John M Ward"  wrote in message 
> news:507fef405fjohn@acornusers.org...
> > this was a stupendous result with a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives,
> > despite what Gordon Brown tried to claim.

Note that this is the only official swing figure being stated, using the
standard methodology that seems to cause no-one here any problem until it
is in favour of the Conservatives, I notice.  Selective interpretation of
figures to deny or diminish an actual result achieved by real voters (well,
apart from any fake postal votes that might or might not have been part of
that result) might serve someone's own agenda, but insults those voters.

> This is a good example of how misleading the usual measure of swing can
> be. The Labour share of the vote fell by 26.7%, but the Conservative
> increase was only 6.29%, so to claim a 16.5% swing to the
> Conservatives is patent nonsense.

Overall, it seems to be the right figure if one is stating a single
quantity.  26.7 plus 6.29 is 32.99, which is the equvalent of 16.5% from
one and the same 16.5% to the other.  Of course we can't know individual
vote changes, but that's the way the swing is always stated.

> Both UKIP (up 9.45%) and the Green Party (up 7.08%) gained more than
> the Conservatives did. While the fall in the Labour vote was
> spectacular, the Conservative gain was rather paltry as by-elections go.

However much the Green vote was "up", they achieved under 10% in total, so
that's hardly a success, though better than the 2.7% they got in 2005.

Similarly, UKIP got under 12%, as against their 2.4% in 2005.  Trying to
suggest that those results were more significant than a huge majority for
the Conservatives is just an attempt at spin, using selected figures that
are "convenient".  I suppose that if a vote had gone up from 1 to 2 votes
(a 100% increase) some here would try to spin that as being of greater
significance than Chloe Smith's achievement.

It all smacks of the nasty attitude of Bradshaw and Harman on Sky News
yesterday, which was just so typical of them, as was Brown's attempt to
turn his interview into a personal advert (see the latest Number Ten
newsletter for more of that, by the way: "I'm fighting hard for you").

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 at 23:21:01, David North 
 wrote in uk.politics.electoral :

>"John M Ward"  wrote in message 
>news:507fef405fjohn@acornusers.org...
>> this was a stupendous result with a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives,
>> despite what Gordon Brown tried to claim.
>
>This is a good example of how misleading the usual measure of swing can 
>be. The Labour share of the vote fell by 26.7%, but the Conservative 
>increase was only 6.29%, so to claim a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives 
>is patent nonsense.

Hoping to drag David Boothroyd out of hiding? :p

>Both UKIP (up 9.45%) and the Green Party (up 7.08%) gained more than 
>the Conservatives did. While the fall in the Labour vote was 
>spectacular, the Conservative gain was rather paltry as by-elections go.

I dare say that'll raise some secret concerns behind closed doors at 
CCO...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 at 03:25:22, JNugent  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>> This is a good example of how misleading the usual measure of swing 
>>can  be. The Labour share of the vote fell by 26.7%, but the 
>>Conservative  increase was only 6.29%, so to claim a 16.5% swing to 
>>the Conservatives  is patent nonsense. Both UKIP (up 9.45%) and the 
>>Green Party (up 7.08%)  gained more than the Conservatives did. While 
>>the fall in the Labour  vote was spectacular, the Conservative gain 
>>was rather paltry as  by-elections go.
>
>Let's all hope for many more such "paltry" gains for the Conservatives 
>at the General Election, eh?

You can't rely on Labour voters sitting on their hands in a GE though - 
at least not to *this* extent.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:01:51 GMT
Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote:


> You can't rely on Labour voters sitting on their hands in a GE though
> - at least not to *this* extent.

I am no fan of Labour - I believe they will lose the general election,
however I think that by elections, European Elections and local
elections are giving something of a false sense of security for the
Conservatives.  When it comes to it more Labour voters will turn out.
I expect it to get nasty though... 

-- 
\/ Lyn David Thomas

Paul Hyett wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>>> This is a good example of how misleading the usual measure of swing 
>>> can  be. The Labour share of the vote fell by 26.7%, but the 
>>> Conservative  increase was only 6.29%, so to claim a 16.5% swing to 
>>> the Conservatives  is patent nonsense. Both UKIP (up 9.45%) and the 
>>> Green Party (up 7.08%)  gained more than the Conservatives did. While 
>>> the fall in the Labour  vote was spectacular, the Conservative gain 
>>> was rather paltry as  by-elections go.

>> Let's all hope for many more such "paltry" gains for the Conservatives 
>> at the General Election, eh?

> You can't rely on Labour voters sitting on their hands in a GE though - 
> at least not to *this* extent.

They don't have to do it everywhere. And seats don't have to be lost by such 
huge swings.

thinks ... when was the last time Norwich North returned a non-Labour MP?

Nick Russell
Herefordshire

Nick Russell wrote:

> thinks ... when was the last time Norwich North returned a non-Labour MP?

1992.

Nick Russell wrote:
> thinks ... when was the last time Norwich North returned a non-Labour MP?

According to <http://www.election.demon.co.uk/1983EB2.html>, the 
Conservatives won it in 1983.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:41:18 +0100
JNugent  wrote:

> > You can't rely on Labour voters sitting on their hands in a GE
> > though - at least not to *this* extent.  
> 
> They don't have to do it everywhere. And seats don't have to be lost
> by such huge swings.

Indeed, and I think the Tories will win the next election, but I would
not be surprised if the majority is a lot smaller than some of the
projections suggest.

-- 
\/ Lyn David Thomas

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:2L6dnd_mK8yP8PfXnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> David North wrote:
>
>> "John M Ward"  wrote:
>
>>> this was a stupendous result with a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives,
>>> despite what Gordon Brown tried to claim.
>
>> This is a good example of how misleading the usual measure of swing can 
>> be. The Labour share of the vote fell by 26.7%, but the Conservative 
>> increase was only 6.29%, so to claim a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives 
>> is patent nonsense. Both UKIP (up 9.45%) and the Green Party (up 7.08%) 
>> gained more than the Conservatives did. While the fall in the Labour vote 
>> was spectacular, the Conservative gain was rather paltry as by-elections 
>> go.
>
> Let's all hope for many more such "paltry" gains for the Conservatives at 
> the General Election, eh?

I only said it was rather paltry *as by-elections go*. As variations, 
whether measured by swing or by changes in individual parties' vote shares, 
tend to be much greater in by-elections, a 6% increase at the General 
Election would be much more impressive (but would also tend to be much less 
likely).

> Even more seriously, are you so unable to give credit where it's due that 
> you overlook the fact that swings in by-elections (even those back in the 
> days when the Libs used to do well at them) have always been calculated on 
> the same basis?

I'm not overlooking anything of the sort. I was just pointing out that, 
where there is a large difference between the fall in one party's share of 
the vote and another party's gain, to represent it as a swing from one to 
the other using the usual calculation is misleading, as it is not a true 
reflection of what actually happened. That is just as true historically as 
it is in this case, which I was merely using as an example.

As for whether 6.29% is a paltry increase, compared with the performances of 
Labour's main opponents in other seats that they have defended in 
by-elections since 1997, it (and most others where the Conservatives were 
the party in question) ranks pretty lowly, so I stand by my assessment:

1997-2001
Falkirk West - SNP +16.5%
Glasgow Anniesland - SNP +3.68%
Hamilton South - SNP +16.39%
Leeds Central - LD +19.6%
Paisley South - SNP +9.11%
Preston - Con +3.07%
Tottenham - LD +8.34%
Wigan - Con +1.10% (LD +3.25%)

2001-2005
Birmingham Hodge Hill - LD +26.09%
Brent East - LD +28.55%
Hartlepool - LD +19.16%
Ipswich - Con -2.10% (LD +7.24%)
Leicester South - LD +17.75%
Ogmore - PC +6.80%

2005-2009
Livingston - SNP +11.1%
Dunfermline & West Fife - LD +15.4%
Ealing Southall - LD +3.2%
Sedgefield - LD +8.0%
Crewe & Nantwich - Con +16.9%
Glasgow East - SNP +26.1%
Glenrothes - SNP +13.1%
-- 
David North

"Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:ttgyRFMSZraKFwUz@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 at 23:21:01, David North 
>  wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>>"John M Ward"  wrote in message 
>>news:507fef405fjohn@acornusers.org...
>>> this was a stupendous result with a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives,
>>> despite what Gordon Brown tried to claim.
>>
>>This is a good example of how misleading the usual measure of swing can 
>>be. The Labour share of the vote fell by 26.7%, but the Conservative 
>>increase was only 6.29%, so to claim a 16.5% swing to the Conservatives is 
>>patent nonsense.
>
> Hoping to drag David Boothroyd out of hiding? :p

Since I've only visited this ng a few times, and this was the first time I 
had posted here, I have no idea who he is.
-- 
David North

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 at 15:22:16, David North 
 wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>>>
>>>This is a good example of how misleading the usual measure of swing 
>>>can be. The Labour share of the vote fell by 26.7%, but the 
>>>Conservative increase was only 6.29%, so to claim a 16.5% swing to 
>>>the Conservatives is patent nonsense.
>>
>> Hoping to drag David Boothroyd out of hiding? :p
>
>Since I've only visited this ng a few times, and this was the first 
>time I had posted here, I have no idea who he is.

Shows how long DB has been AWOL!

He's a Labour councillor & psephologist who used to post here regularly. 
One of his quirks was to ignore anything but Lab/Con swings, even in 
Scottish/Welsh elections where both were distant 3rd/4th behind LD & 
nationalists.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham