politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON hold Witney with a much reduced majority & the LDs coming

Second, like the wishful thinking party...

"For a party with double digit leads in all the national polls the Tory vote drop in Witney was poor & hardly vote of confidence in TMay"

Ahem...

https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/789293246954561544

https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/789293343893295104

Performance of LDs good, but not Earth-shattering. That of Government consistent with established norms.

Prime Ministers accrue large personal votes over the years. This is a reversion to type and no doubt Tory % will be 50% or so next time. It will get LibDems some publicity oxygen which they certainly need.

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/789325798679388160

Result of a by-election in a Government held seat in mid-term, in which turnout was fairly low, a lot of Tories stayed at home, and the LDs threw everything at the seat and still couldn't get close.

You could just as easily say the following:

1. Pro-EU party concentrates all its resources on Remain-voting Govt seat, still can't get within 5,000 votes of winning
2. Total Con + Ukip vote = 48.56%, which is actually slightly HIGHER then the Leave percentage recorded in the local authority area in which Witney falls

This is not somewhere where the Lib Dems - who are still, lest we forget, totally becalmed at 8% in the national VI averages - are liable to do well in a general election. Restoration of a 20,000+ Tory majority is still perfectly reasonable to imagine under those conditions.

Well done LibDems. The end of the beginning?

First UKIP lost deposit in parliamentary by since when?

Michelle Obama wows the faithful in Arizona as Democrats make a concerted effort in the state :

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/michelle-obama-campaign-arizona-230121

partypoliticalorphan said:

Prime Ministers accrue large personal votes over the years. This is a reversion to type and no doubt Tory % will be 50% or so next time. It will get LibDems some publicity oxygen which they certainly need.

Only if anybody notices who did second best in an unremarkable by-election, in which there was a comfortable Government hold, and which (so far at least) has been getting about fourth billing in the news.

Update: this morning's main items on the Beeb - Aberfan anniversary, Russian controversies, Batley by-election, Witney by-election (still fourth.)

I don't rule out the possibility of a yellow revival in the national polls by any means, but I won't believe it until I see it.

The Independent: Donald Trump gets booed at charity dinner for saying Hillary Clinton hates Catholics. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwyqutiTA

swing_voter said:

The Lib Dems appeared to throw a lot at this, and it is probably about right a big swing took place, but does it point to anything more. The Green & Labour vote was not squeezed that hard, was there an issue with their messaging?

That's actually a very good point. The Lib Dems have had a good go at the Government, but other left-leaning parties' votes have held up well. Evidence that an important idea - that all the left-leaning voters who deserted them over the Coalition are still not willing to lend them their support against the Tories - remains valid.

YellowSubmarine said:

The Independent: Donald Trump gets booed at charity dinner for saying Hillary Clinton hates Catholics. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwyqutiTA

Saw both speeches, Hillary had some good jokes poorly delivered. Trump was ok for a little then just went too far. The booing was justified, he was awful.

The last time anyone was booed at the Al Smith dinner was Carter in 1980 apparently.

It was a near perfect by-election result for my betting. Labour on 14.99% was a particularly nice touch.

A spot on call by Sporting Index, offering a buy of the Tories at 45.0% of the vote, compared with their actual share of 45.02% .... no flies on them!

FF43 said:

Labour did surprisingly well in the circumstances - by-election squeeze and the Corbyn effect.

My guess would be that it's down to a combination of factors. First, the nature of the constituency - the Labour vote there being, one would assume, disproportionately comprised of the sort of well-to-do middle-class lefties who are attracted rather than repelled by Corbyn. And second, the continued unwillingness on the part of all those left-leaning voters who deserted the Lib Dems over the Coalition to contemplate supporting them again. In short, I'd guess that the Lib Dem performance is a product of winning over some Conservative voters, whilst many others stayed at home.

Trying to win seats at a general election entirely on the basis of hacking away at the Tory vote might be enough to secure a small handful of seats - assuming that things remain as they are, and thus there are, perhaps, enough right-leaning voters who feel secure about the overall outcome to go back to a party which might vote to put Labour back in office if given the chance - but it won't get them all that far.

FF43 said:

Labour did surprisingly well in the circumstances - by-election squeeze and the Corbyn effect.

Went to alter my previous post, but the edit function appears to be up the swanny river. Anyway:

My guess would be that it's down to a combination of factors. First, the nature of the constituency - the Labour vote there being, one would assume, disproportionately comprised of the sort of well-to-do middle-class lefties who are attracted rather than repelled by Corbyn. And second, the continued unwillingness on the part of all those left-leaning voters who deserted the Lib Dems over the Coalition to contemplate supporting them again. In short, I'd guess that the Lib Dem performance is a product of winning over some Conservative voters, whilst many others stayed at home.

Trying to win seats at a general election entirely on the basis of hacking away at the Tory vote might be enough to secure a small handful of MPs - assuming that things remain as they are, and thus there are, perhaps, enough right-leaning voters who feel secure about the overall outcome to go back to a party which might vote to put Labour back in office if given the chance - but it won't get them all that far. Besides, I'm still not convinced - on the basis of isolated by-election results - that the current LD leader (or his soft left offer) are as attractive to the yellow Tory vote as Nick Clegg was.

Looking at council results as well as this by-election, the main takeaway last night is the unsurprising collapse in the UKIP vote. I would say the Lib Dems are firmly back as the third party.

FF43 said:

Looking at council results as well as this by-election, the main takeaway last night is the unsurprising collapse in the UKIP vote. I would say the Lib Dems are firmly back as the third party.

That's very much the way it looks, which rather supports the view I expressed here a couple of days ago that NOM in 2020 looks very sound value at 3.0 with Betfair, with every prospect of trading this out profitably along the way for those not wishing to wait for up to three and a half years for the actual result.
I've invested heavily, but please DYOR .

I wonder how this would have worked if paddy ashdowns idea of standing only one pro eu candidate against the tories had happened.

peter_from_putney said:

A spot on call by Sporting Index, offering a buy of the Tories at 45.0% of the vote, compared with their actual share of 45.02% .... no flies on them!

But the SPIN LD buy at 25% proved a good bet

JennyFreeman said:

Very silly to read anything into this by-election.

Cameron was PM and took Witney with the same 45% share when he started out as a MP.

For the LibDems it's a far cry from the days of Christchurch or Newbury.

I think some are very keen to read into this by-election what they wish to.

peter_from_putney said:

FF43 said:

Looking at council results as well as this by-election, the main takeaway last night is the unsurprising collapse in the UKIP vote. I would say the Lib Dems are firmly back as the third party.

That's very much the way it looks, which rather supports the view I expressed here a couple of days ago that NOM in 2020 looks very sound value at 3.0 with Betfair, with every prospect of trading this out profitably along the way for those not wishing to wait for up to three and a half years for the actual result.
I've invested heavily, but please DYOR .

I am doing the same. But, please... ssshht!

Desperate. We're leaving the EU - get used to it.

RobD said:

I think the surprising result is how well the Labour vote held up.

Not as well as in Batley and Spen.

foxinsoxuk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It was a near perfect by-election result for my betting. Labour on 14.99% was a particularly nice touch.

Did you have them on sub 15? Jammy!

10-15% with Ladbrokes.

So far Jeremy Corbyn has outperferformed the low expectations set for him at every electoral test. At a low level, Labour's support seems solid.

That was a good tip.

Jezza has a small but fervent following.

Honestly, it's not small.

JennyFreeman said:

Of the two latest national opinion polls, both have Trump in the lead. Okay, they are both tracking polls but there's a golden rule on here about not cherry picking the polls we wish to see.
Trump leads by 3% and 1% respectively:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct20
http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-holds-on-to-1-point-lead-as-debate-sparks-fly/

What we can state is that there is some serious value to be had on Trump.

Why do you think the methodology of the Ras and LA Times polls causes them to have such different results from other pollsters?

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

I think the surprising result is how well the Labour vote held up.

Not as well as in Batley and Spen.

Against a bunch of nobodies, thanks to Cameron's pledge (followed by LD and UKIP) not to stand in the seat.
I can understand his reasons at the time, but with hindsight a poor decision.

Morning all.

Well done Shadsy for a very close prediction – a career in national polling beckons...

dr_spyn said:

Am still surprised that the Batley By-election was uncontested. The death of Jo Cox was a vile act, but Labour should not have been given a free run by Cameron in the first place.

By May, surely.

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It was a near perfect by-election result for my betting. Labour on 14.99% was a particularly nice touch.

Did you have them on sub 15? Jammy!

10-15% with Ladbrokes.

So far Jeremy Corbyn has outperferformed the low expectations set for him at every electoral test. At a low level, Labour's support seems solid.

With the continuing effects of globalisation there will be a core vote for hard left economics.

rcs1000 said:

dr_spyn said:

Am still surprised that the Batley By-election was uncontested. The death of Jo Cox was a vile act, but Labour should not have been given a free run by Cameron in the first place.

By May, surely.

Everything's Cameron's fault.

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

Labour did surprisingly well in the circumstances - by-election squeeze and the Corbyn effect.

Indeed.

There's clearly a core Labour vote which either is impressed by Corbyn and/or strongly hostile to the LibDems.

UKIP I would say have no purpose in the middle class South with this Conservative government.

There niche is at present being a populist working class party.

I agree - if, by "populist" you mean racist....

IanB2 said:

another_richard said:

"Pro hard BREXIT parties, CON & UKIP, see vote DOWN by 20.7% in Witney by-election."

or

June 23 Brexit 46.3%
October 20 Hard Brexit 48.6%

Will you be spinning the results that way as well Mike ???

This site often embarrassed itself during the referendum campaign please don't do so now.

Lol. So every single Remain-leaning Witney Tory was expected to defect to the LibDems? Yeah, right.

Wasn't that what the LibDems were hoping for ?

Not to mention the anti-Brexit leftists everywhere:

' On Friday morning, the bookies assume, there will be a new Conservative MP for Witney, the constituency suddenly vacated by David Cameron when he resigned last month. While few doubt that the Tory candidate, Robert Courts, will win, it is likely he will have no more than 40% of the vote, where his predecessor won 60%.

Now just imagine what a message could have been sent if Labour and the Lib Dems – and perhaps the Greens too – had run a single candidate to campaign just on a pro-single market, pro-migrant, pro-refugee ticket. These are issues that many voters in Witney, a constituency that voted to remain in the EU by 54% to 46%, care about deeply. These are people who trek into Oxford to join Refugees Welcome marches like the one last week, and who support the local council’s Asylum Welcome work. '

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/17/left-united-witney-theresa-mays-britain-byelection-lib-dems-labour

So the Conservatives did better than the guardianistas were expecting.

To quote rcs1000:
"24+% - This is a genuinely good result for the LDs, and they can go into future by-elections (such as Richmond Park, if Zac resigns) with a degree of confidence"
30% is a very good result for the LibDems.
UKIP dropping to 5th and losing deposit is very bad for them.

Elsewhere UKIP lose a council seat they were defending and the LibDems gain a seat from the Tories (look at UKIP's vote)

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 8h8 hours ago
St Mary's (E. Riding of Yorks.):

LD: 40.0% (+28.7)
CON: 25.3% (-3.2)
LAB: 18.4% (+0.6)
BEV: 9.7% (-1.2)
IND: 3.8% (+3.8)
UKIP: 2.7% (-10.3)

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

Labour did surprisingly well in the circumstances - by-election squeeze and the Corbyn effect.

Indeed.

There's clearly a core Labour vote which either is impressed by Corbyn and/or strongly hostile to the LibDems.

UKIP I would say have no purpose in the middle class South with this Conservative government.

Their niche is at present being a populist working class party.

A there / their mistake.

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It was a near perfect by-election result for my betting. Labour on 14.99% was a particularly nice touch.

Did you have them on sub 15? Jammy!

10-15% with Ladbrokes.

So far Jeremy Corbyn has outperferformed the low expectations set for him at every electoral test. At a low level, Labour's support seems solid.

With the continuing effects of globalisation there will be a core vote for hard left economics.

For "the continuing effects of globalization" read "the continuing and, indeed, accelerating, reduction in the number of wealth creators".

foxinsoxuk said:

Jonathan said:

foxinsoxuk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It was a near perfect by-election result for my betting. Labour on 14.99% was a particularly nice touch.

Did you have them on sub 15? Jammy!

10-15% with Ladbrokes.

So far Jeremy Corbyn has outperferformed the low expectations set for him at every electoral test. At a low level, Labour's support seems solid.

That was a good tip.

Jezza has a small but fervent following.

Honestly, it's not small.

It is too small. Name me the seats that Jezza will gain at the next election (current boundaries). He needs about 100 seats off SNP or Tories to form a government.

At 730 on Friday morning I find it hard to name anything, let alone marginals. The point being however that Corbyns support is not negligible and in time could be a net positive compared to the kind of indifference we saw to Labour in 2015 or the hostility of 2010.

ThomasNashe said:

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

I think the surprising result is how well the Labour vote held up.

Not as well as in Batley and Spen.

Against a bunch of nobodies, thanks to Cameron's pledge (followed by LD and UKIP) not to stand in the seat.
I can understand his reasons at the time, but with hindsight a poor decision.

I don't think so. Putting up a candidate would have attracted a lot of criticism. It was a no-win really - and the result is irrelevant. The seat will be up for grabs again at the next GE.

Putting up a candidate in an election would have attracted criticism? What nonsense is this?

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

dr_spyn said:

Am still surprised that the Batley By-election was uncontested. The death of Jo Cox was a vile act, but Labour should not have been given a free run by Cameron in the first place.

Indeed. It was a ludicrously sentimental decision. The voters in that constituency should have been offered a choice.
.

Disagree, it was the right decision. Silencing MPs by murdering them cannot be rewarded eith political change.

Not a policy which was followed when MPs were murdered by the IRA who were seeking political change.

It is for the voters to decide whether there should be political change and there have been plenty of events on which the voters should have the right to express a view. This is about the rights of voters. Not the rights of parties to hold onto seats without challenge.

Democracy should not be suspended as a result of murder. This sets a very bad precedent - that a violent act can lead to the suspension of full multi party democracy.

Innocent_Abroad said:

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

Labour did surprisingly well in the circumstances - by-election squeeze and the Corbyn effect.

Indeed.

There's clearly a core Labour vote which either is impressed by Corbyn and/or strongly hostile to the LibDems.

UKIP I would say have no purpose in the middle class South with this Conservative government.

There niche is at present being a populist working class party.

I agree - if, by "populist" you mean racist....

I suspect Respect and its ilk are the ones with the highest proportion of racist voters.

HappyMcFluffy said:

FPPPT - @foxinsoxuk How is turnout calculated in US elections

Do you have an answer?

Turnouts of barely 50% for POTUS are surprisingly low.

Edit: I see, so based on estimated population rather than number registered. Curious that Betfair use a different formula.

Cyclefree said:

ThomasNashe said:

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

I think the surprising result is how well the Labour vote held up.

Not as well as in Batley and Spen.

Against a bunch of nobodies, thanks to Cameron's pledge (followed by LD and UKIP) not to stand in the seat.
I can understand his reasons at the time, but with hindsight a poor decision.

I don't think so. Putting up a candidate would have attracted a lot of criticism. It was a no-win really - and the result is irrelevant. The seat will be up for grabs again at the next GE.

Putting up a candidate in an election would have attracted criticism? What nonsense is this?

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

dr_spyn said:

Am still surprised that the Batley By-election was uncontested. The death of Jo Cox was a vile act, but Labour should not have been given a free run by Cameron in the first place.

Indeed. It was a ludicrously sentimental decision. The voters in that constituency should have been offered a choice.
.

Disagree, it was the right decision. Silencing MPs by murdering them cannot be rewarded eith political change.

Not a policy which was followed when MPs were murdered by the IRA who were seeking political change.

It is for the voters to decide whether there should be political change and there have been plenty of events on which the voters should have the right to express a view. This is about the rights of voters. Not the rights of parties to hold onto seats without challenge.

Democracy should not be suspended as a result of murder. This sets a very bad precedent - that a violent act can lead to the suspension of full multi party democracy.

Nothing undemocratic about this. Parties are always at liberty to stand or not. The voters seemed happy. No sign of protest at all. We have moved on.

ThomasNashe said:

another_richard said:

IanB2 said:

another_richard said:

"Pro hard BREXIT parties, CON & UKIP, see vote DOWN by 20.7% in Witney by-election."

or

June 23 Brexit 46.3%
October 20 Hard Brexit 48.6%

Will you be spinning the results that way as well Mike ???

This site often embarrassed itself during the referendum campaign please don't do so now.

Lol. So every single Remain-leaning Witney Tory was expected to defect to the LibDems? Yeah, right.

Wasn't that what the LibDems were hoping for ?

Not to mention the anti-Brexit leftists everywhere:

' On Friday morning, the bookies assume, there will be a new Conservative MP for Witney, the constituency suddenly vacated by David Cameron when he resigned last month. While few doubt that the Tory candidate, Robert Courts, will win, it is likely he will have no more than 40% of the vote, where his predecessor won 60%.

Now just imagine what a message could have been sent if Labour and the Lib Dems – and perhaps the Greens too – had run a single candidate to campaign just on a pro-single market, pro-migrant, pro-refugee ticket. These are issues that many voters in Witney, a constituency that voted to remain in the EU by 54% to 46%, care about deeply. These are people who trek into Oxford to join Refugees Welcome marches like the one last week, and who support the local council’s Asylum Welcome work. '

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/17/left-united-witney-theresa-mays-britain-byelection-lib-dems-labour

So the Conservatives did better than the guardianistas were expecting.

Hoping for does not = expecting it.

And yet Anne Perkins at least did expect it.

Here's another way of comparing the byelection result which Mike wont be tweeting:

2015 Pro Hard Brexit 9.2%
2016 Pro Hard Brexit 48.6%

Cyclefree said:

...

Democracy should not be suspended as a result of murder. This sets a very bad precedent - that a violent act can lead to the suspension of full multi party democracy.

As opposed to a violent act changing which party holds the seat?

Democracy was not suspended because of a murder. A murder attempted to suspend democracy.

This was the right decision, and should be a policy going forward.

Essexit said:

It's avastly unrepresentative seat, this says nothing about how the country feels towards hard Brexit one way or the other.

Indeed. – However there will be many who will see everything through the prism of the Brexit result and seek to connect the dots - most of it will be complete bolox.

Cyclefree said:

ThomasNashe said:

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

I think the surprising result is how well the Labour vote held up.

Not as well as in Batley and Spen.

Against a bunch of nobodies, thanks to Cameron's pledge (followed by LD and UKIP) not to stand in the seat.
I can understand his reasons at the time, but with hindsight a poor decision.

I don't think so. Putting up a candidate would have attracted a lot of criticism. It was a no-win really - and the result is irrelevant. The seat will be up for grabs again at the next GE.

Putting up a candidate in an election would have attracted criticism? What nonsense is this?

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

dr_spyn said:

Am still surprised that the Batley By-election was uncontested. The death of Jo Cox was a vile act, but Labour should not have been given a free run by Cameron in the first place.

Indeed. It was a ludicrously sentimental decision. The voters in that constituency should have been offered a choice.
.

Disagree, it was the right decision. Silencing MPs by murdering them cannot be rewarded eith political change.

Not a policy which was followed when MPs were murdered by the IRA who were seeking political change.

It is for the voters to decide whether there should be political change and there have been plenty of events on which the voters should have the right to express a view. This is about the rights of voters. Not the rights of parties to hold onto seats without challenge.

Democracy should not be suspended as a result of murder. This sets a very bad precedent - that a violent act can lead to the suspension of full multi party democracy.

I think I disagree, in this particular circumstance. If it was an IRA or terrorist murder I'd probably agree. Inconsistent? Yes. But there's something about this that feels as if it's the right thing for them to have done.

Though Mrs J happens to agree with you.

(You could also argue that a death - not just murder - should be treated in the same manner. Was the death of Michael Colvin any less sad than that of Jo Cox?)

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

ThomasNashe said:

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

I think the surprising result is how well the Labour vote held up.

Not as well as in Batley and Spen.

Against a bunch of nobodies, thanks to Cameron's pledge (followed by LD and UKIP) not to stand in the seat.
I can understand his reasons at the time, but with hindsight a poor decision.

I don't think so. Putting up a candidate would have attracted a lot of criticism. It was a no-win really - and the result is irrelevant. The seat will be up for grabs again at the next GE.

Putting up a candidate in an election would have attracted criticism? What nonsense is this?

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

dr_spyn said:

Am still surprised that the Batley By-election was uncontested. The death of Jo Cox was a vile act, but Labour should not have been given a free run by Cameron in the first place.

Indeed. It was a ludicrously sentimental decision. The voters in that constituency should have been offered a choice.
.

Disagree, it was the right decision. Silencing MPs by murdering them cannot be rewarded eith political change.

Not a policy which was followed when MPs were murdered by the IRA who were seeking political change.

It is for the voters to decide whether there should be political change and there have been plenty of events on which the voters should have the right to express a view. This is about the rights of voters. Not the rights of parties to hold onto seats without challenge.

Democracy should not be suspended as a result of murder. This sets a very bad precedent - that a violent act can lead to the suspension of full multi party democracy.

Nothing undemocratic about this. Parties are always at liberty to stand or not. The voters seemed happy. No sign of protest at all. We have moved on.

I agree with Cyclefree. I wouldn't be happy if I were a voter in Batley.

SimonStClare said:

Morning all.

Well done Shadsy for a very close prediction – a career in national polling beckons...

I don't think so somehow .... have you any idea of the scale of Shadsy's Christmas bonus this year?
No, neither have I, but it must surely be enormous. The Magic Sign have much to thank him for over the years, as do we PBers, although it hurts somewhat to admit as much.

foxinsoxuk said:

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

Labour did surprisingly well in the circumstances - by-election squeeze and the Corbyn effect.

Indeed.

There's clearly a core Labour vote which either is impressed by Corbyn and/or strongly hostile to the LibDems.

UKIP I would say have no purpose in the middle class South with this Conservative government.

There niche is at present being a populist working class party.

UKIP are going to be extinct soon, their job having been done.

Their votes will not always go to the Tories, as so many did not start there.

UKIP will continue to pick up Blue Labour votes as long as there is a Red Labour leadership.

The ironic thing is that UKIP's continuing existence now benefits only the Conservatives.