The Tories lost ALL of the by-elections in which they were previously
incumbent in that Parliament.

They lost:
Newbury 1993 - 52% of their previous vote share
Christchurch 1993 - 51% of their previous vote
Eastleigh 1994 - 52% of their previous vote
Dudley W 1994 - 63% of their previous vote
Perth & Kinross 1995 47% of their previous vote
Littleborough 1996 47% of their previous vote
SE Staffs 1996 44% of their previous vote
Wirral S  32% of their previous vote

Since Brown's appointment
Crewe 2008 lost 37% of previous vote
Glasgow E 2008 lost 31% of previous vote
Glenrothes Increased by 6%
Norwich North lost 59%

So while the previous by-elections Brown has lost were bad, they did
not equal Major. Norwich North, however, exceeds every humiliation
Major ever had, with the single exception of Dudley West, which was
won by Labour shortly after Blair became leader

Presumably we can expect more similar results in the future, given
that this government is certainly not more popular than Major's..

thelawnet@gmail.com wrote:

> So while the previous by-elections Brown has lost were bad, they did
> not equal Major.

I honestly think we're closer to a 1987-1992 situation where the governing 
party did retain some by-elections. And there are some obvious parrallels - 
the rise of the Greens, the Liberal Democrats spending the early part of the 
parliament seemingly fighting themselves more than anything else, the 
replacement of a longstanding charismatic Prime Minister with a supposedly 
competent-but-dull Chancellor and opinion polls throughout the Parliament 
that were quite volatile.

One longstanding theory for Labour's good retention record since 1997 is 
that most of their seats that fell vacant were not marginals or even 
remotely so. I haven't yet seen anyone note that Norwich North is the first 
by-election in a seat the Conservatives lost in 1997. (At a glance the only 
other Labour defence of a seat that was Conservative during 1979-1997 was 
Ipswich, gained in 1992 and with the by-election in late 2001, the worst 
time for a Conservative revival.) A lot of the Labour defences have fallen 
in safe seats held for a long time, and whilst that isn't a guarantee 
against loss, it's harder to generate a momentum effect.

Whether the Conservatives would have held seats like Chelsea or Reigate in 
by-elections in 1992-1997 is unclear - and both of those could have had them 
for one reason or another. (Reigate would have been triggered by the sitting 
MP enacting his threat to take his deselection to the full electorate, 
albeit with the complication that the forthcoming boundary changes - 
basically moving Horley out and Banstead in - that were already enacted for 
the association had fueled the issue locally and of course the by-election 
would have been on the old boundaries.)

Plus I think the other big difference is that it's not a surprise to people 
that Labour won the last election. In the late 1980s and 1990s it became 
unfashionable to admit to voting Conservative, plus the 1992 election did 
surprise many, so for many people the Conservatives in power was unexpected 
and hard to understand, particularly if nobody you knew would admit to 
voting for them. And that just added to the growing anger.

On 25 July, 21:01, "Tim Roll-Pickering" <T.C.Roll-
Picker...@qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
> thelaw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So while the previous by-elections Brown has lost were bad, they did
> > not equal Major.
>
> I honestly think we're closer to a 1987-1992 situation where the governing
> party did retain some by-elections. And there are some obvious parrallels -
> the rise of the Greens, the Liberal Democrats spending the early part of the
> parliament seemingly fighting themselves more than anything else, the
> replacement of a longstanding charismatic Prime Minister with a supposedly
> competent-but-dull Chancellor and opinion polls throughout the Parliament
> that were quite volatile.
>
> One longstanding theory for Labour's good retention record since 1997 is
> that most of their seats that fell vacant were not marginals or even
> remotely so. I haven't yet seen anyone note that Norwich North is the first
> by-election in a seat the Conservatives lost in 1997. (At a glance the only
> other Labour defence of a seat that was Conservative during 1979-1997 was
> Ipswich, gained in 1992 and with the by-election in late 2001, the worst
> time for a Conservative revival.) A lot of the Labour defences have fallen
> in safe seats held for a long time, and whilst that isn't a guarantee
> against loss, it's harder to generate a momentum effect.

This wasn't a Conservative seat from 1979-1997, but from 1983 only.
Labour had a 15.8% majority in 1979, and the Tories had never won it
before 1983. In 1992 the Tory majority was only 0.5%, less than say
Basildon.

Clearly it's not a leafy Tory heartland like Christchurch, lost in
1993, is, but a semi-urban constituency.

The kind of fall in vote share that Labour suffered in Norwich would
have seen the Tories lose Richmond to the SDP in 1989 and Kensington
to Labour in 1988.

We do need some more by-elections though, it seemed as if the Tories
were always losing seats 1992-1997, although that might have been the
effect of Major's small majority. Labour have actually defended 7 so
far in this Parliament to the Tories' 8 in that one.

Labour were basically in a 'going to win the next election' mode from
1997 to 2007, and have looked like losers for only a year or so,
whereas the Tories spent five years looking like losers - as a result
I guess we'll never be able to judge whether Brown's Labour are the
losers that Major's Tories were.