In message , 
rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk writes
>In article ,
>dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk (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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>This reminds me of past fatuous arguments with Boothroyd on swings. Thank
>you for your clear explanation.
>
I don't think even that analysis is really helpful when the turnout has 
dropped so much.

The actual Labour vote was down by 15,000 (70%), Tories down by 2,000 
(10%), Liberals down 3,000 (40%) and others up 7,000 (260%).

 From this, I estimate that few Labour voters actually swung to the 
Tories.  Most stayed at home or voted for one of the minor parties.

In a general election, the prospect of a Tory government will 
concentrate minds.  Much will depend on whether That Nice Man Dave can 
overcome voters' fears of a return to Thatcher's sectarian policies.
-- 
Goalie of the Century