UK Parliamentary by-elections, 2015 onwards (also devolved legislatures)

[YL]

Polling day is today in Stoke on Trent Central and Copeland.  It's fair to say that the weather forecast is pretty bad in both; don't expect high turnouts.

Andrew Teale's previews for both by-elections are here.

The Stoke campaign has been rather more high profile, largely due to the antics of UKIP and their leader and candidate there, Paul Nuttall.  From a Labour perspective (more, in my case, an anti-Tory and anti-UKIP perspective) I'm rather more worried about Copeland, though, which is the sort of seat the Tories would expect to win in a General Election on current polling.

[parochial boy]

I saw the other day the Labour were feeling increasingly confident of holding both; even if both seats seem uniquely badly suited to the state labour are currently in (Corbyn vs the nuclear power industry in Copeland; and Brexity-Brexity-Brexit in Stoke)

[Hnv1]

Labour to comfortably hold Stoke and marginally carry Copeland

[vileplume]

Polling day is today in Stoke on Trent Central and Copeland.  It's fair to say that the weather forecast is pretty bad in both; don't expect high turnouts.

Andrew Teale's previews for both by-elections are here.

The Stoke campaign has been rather more high profile, largely due to the antics of UKIP and their leader and candidate there, Paul Nuttall.  From a Labour perspective (more, in my case, an anti-Tory and anti-UKIP perspective) I'm rather more worried about Copeland, though, which is the sort of seat the Tories would expect to win in a General Election on current polling.

Yeah it would be very likely the Tories would take Copeland in a general election held today. However this is a by-election where the composition of the government is not at risk (i.e. voting Labour in Copeland today will not let Corbyn become prime minister) and other more local issues like nuclear power and the hospital become the focal points.

Sitting governments almost always do badly in by-elections while oppositions usually do well, even very unpopular oppositions usually do ok. Incidentally if Labour narrowly hold the media will probably treat it like some kind of success, as expectations for Labour are rock bottom at present, when in reality a swing to the government in a by-election is actually a horrendous performance.

The bookies seem to think that the Tories are the favourites but I'm not so sure thy called Richmond Park wrong for example. Plus Labour's candidate in Copeland seems decent too (unlike their terrible one in Stoke).

As for Stoke Labour should hold but only because UKIP epically screwed up. Turnout (and enthusiasm for any of the parties) will be at rock bottom. Also the Guardian has a good video about Stoke Central in their latest instalment of anywhere but Westminster if anyone's interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGis5Wf8_eQ

[Phony Moderate]

Saw some awful BBC report about Stoke the other day. They featured some guy who they described as a "rare breed - a Remain voter in Stoke". Actually about 1 in 3 voters in Stoke backed Remain so that's a real stretch of the term 'rare breed', just as it would be to describe a Leave voter in Richmond Park as a 'rare breed'.

Anyhow, what chance that Farage returns to the leadership within the next week?

[YL]

Polling day is today in Stoke on Trent Central and Copeland.  It's fair to say that the weather forecast is pretty bad in both; don't expect high turnouts.

Andrew Teale's previews for both by-elections are here.

The Stoke campaign has been rather more high profile, largely due to the antics of UKIP and their leader and candidate there, Paul Nuttall.  From a Labour perspective (more, in my case, an anti-Tory and anti-UKIP perspective) I'm rather more worried about Copeland, though, which is the sort of seat the Tories would expect to win in a General Election on current polling.

Yeah it would be very likely the Tories would take Copeland in a general election held today. However this is a by-election where the composition of the government is not at risk (i.e. voting Labour in Copeland today will not let Corbyn become prime minister) and other more local issues like nuclear power and the hospital become the focal points.

Sitting governments almost always do badly in by-elections while oppositions usually do well, even very unpopular oppositions usually do ok. Incidentally if Labour narrowly hold the media will probably treat it like some kind of success, as expectations for Labour are rock bottom at present, when in reality a swing to the government in a by-election is actually a horrendous performance.

The bookies seem to think that the Tories are the favourites but I'm not so sure thy called Richmond Park wrong for example. Plus Labour's candidate in Copeland seems decent too (unlike their terrible one in Stoke).

Yes, people don't vote in by-elections like they do in general elections, but I'm not convinced this thing about the government not having gained a seat in a by-election since 1982 is that meaningful in this context: most oppositions were not polling as badly as Corbyn's Labour, so there weren't many comparable opportunities.

[rob in cal]

   Betting on the exchanges has Labour favored in Stoke, Tories in Copeland.

[vileplume]

Polling day is today in Stoke on Trent Central and Copeland.  It's fair to say that the weather forecast is pretty bad in both; don't expect high turnouts.

Andrew Teale's previews for both by-elections are here.

The Stoke campaign has been rather more high profile, largely due to the antics of UKIP and their leader and candidate there, Paul Nuttall.  From a Labour perspective (more, in my case, an anti-Tory and anti-UKIP perspective) I'm rather more worried about Copeland, though, which is the sort of seat the Tories would expect to win in a General Election on current polling.

Yeah it would be very likely the Tories would take Copeland in a general election held today. However this is a by-election where the composition of the government is not at risk (i.e. voting Labour in Copeland today will not let Corbyn become prime minister) and other more local issues like nuclear power and the hospital become the focal points.

Sitting governments almost always do badly in by-elections while oppositions usually do well, even very unpopular oppositions usually do ok. Incidentally if Labour narrowly hold the media will probably treat it like some kind of success, as expectations for Labour are rock bottom at present, when in reality a swing to the government in a by-election is actually a horrendous performance.

The bookies seem to think that the Tories are the favourites but I'm not so sure thy called Richmond Park wrong for example. Plus Labour's candidate in Copeland seems decent too (unlike their terrible one in Stoke).

Yes, people don't vote in by-elections like they do in general elections, but I'm not convinced this thing about the government not having gained a seat in a by-election since 1982 is that meaningful in this context: most oppositions were not polling as badly as Corbyn's Labour, so there weren't many comparable opportunities.

The best comparisons are the Uxbridge and Beckenham by-elections in 1997 when the Tories were even further behind Labour than Labour are behind the Tories now. In Uxbridge, despite their dreadful poll ratings, the Tories got a decent sized swing towards them in Beckenham there was a moderate swing to Labour. If there is a swing to the Tories it is absolutely awful showing, if Labour manage to lose it then they have managed to do worse than the Tories at their nadir when they had only 165 MPs...

[joevsimp]

Saw some awful BBC report about Stoke the other day. They featured some guy who they described as a "rare breed - a Remain voter in Stoke". Actually about 1 in 3 voters in Stoke backed Remain so that's a real stretch of the term 'rare breed', just as it would be to describe a Leave voter in Richmond Park as a 'rare breed'.

Anyhow, what chance that Farage returns to the leadership within the next week?

Fun fact: i did some number crunching the otget day. Almost 5 million leave voters live in districts that voted remain, and over 9 million remain voters live in leave voting distrcts, and one million (including my parents and yer man in stoke there) of those are in arwas that voted leave by 65%+

[Blair]

I was going to bet on Labour holding Copeland last week when the odds were really good, but they've been cut now.

I'd put money on Labour holds in both- with UKIP even coming 3rd in Stoke. Both campaigns have had a lot thrown at them, and Copeland has been turned in a referendum on the NHS. The biggest danger is the Lib-Dems surging in either seat, and costing Labour the seats.

On brexit it's worth noting that if every Remain voter in Stoke voted Lib Dem they'd win the seat

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, people don't vote in by-elections like they do in general elections, but I'm not convinced this thing about the government not having gained a seat in a by-election since 1982 is that meaningful in this context: most oppositions were not polling as badly as Corbyn's Labour, so there weren't many comparable opportunities.

We can go further: not only were most Oppositions polling better than the present one but most Opposition seats that have held by-elections have had larger majorities than Copeland. And the circumstances of the by-election - Honourable Member quits seat for a better paying job - are not good for a defence. The inverse also applies: if the seat is held it would hardly prove that everything is hunky-dory.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Saw some awful BBC report about Stoke the other day. They featured some guy who they described as a "rare breed - a Remain voter in Stoke". Actually about 1 in 3 voters in Stoke backed Remain so that's a real stretch of the term 'rare breed', just as it would be to describe a Leave voter in Richmond Park as a 'rare breed'.

Anyhow, what chance that Farage returns to the leadership within the next week?

FPTP has kind of warped British minds when it comes to analysing referendum results...

[YL]

The best comparisons are the Uxbridge and Beckenham by-elections in 1997 when the Tories were even further behind Labour than Labour are behind the Tories now. In Uxbridge, despite their dreadful poll ratings, the Tories got a decent sized swing towards them in Beckenham there was a moderate swing to Labour. If there is a swing to the Tories it is absolutely awful showing, if Labour manage to lose it then they have managed to do worse than the Tories at their nadir when they had only 165 MPs...

Those don't work very well precisely because the Tories only had 165 seats.  They'd just lost all the semi-marginals, comparable to Copeland for Labour today, which might have come under threat in a by-election.

I fear the current state of the Labour Party really is bad enough that Copeland is loseable.

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

The best comparisons are the Uxbridge and Beckenham by-elections in 1997 when the Tories were even further behind Labour than Labour are behind the Tories now. In Uxbridge, despite their dreadful poll ratings, the Tories got a decent sized swing towards them in Beckenham there was a moderate swing to Labour. If there is a swing to the Tories it is absolutely awful showing, if Labour manage to lose it then they have managed to do worse than the Tories at their nadir when they had only 165 MPs...

Uxbridge was due to the death of the sitting MP; Beckenham was the result of a scandal where the sitting MP had left his wife for his secretary, or something like that.

[Cassius]

I can't wait for the inevitable 'Labour holds on to Copeland and Stoke with increased majorities' type results... and for the sound of silence from the media clown car.

[Phony Moderate]

Apparently the Tories are now 1/8 to win Copeland.

[Tintrlvr]

Apparently the Tories are now 1/8 to win Copeland.

Seems crazy. They might win, sure, but to be favored so strongly?

I was going to bet on Labour holding Copeland last week when the odds were really good, but they've been cut now.

I'd put money on Labour holds in both- with UKIP even coming 3rd in Stoke. Both campaigns have had a lot thrown at them, and Copeland has been turned in a referendum on the NHS. The biggest danger is the Lib-Dems surging in either seat, and costing Labour the seats.

On brexit it's worth noting that if every Remain voter in Stoke voted Lib Dem they'd win the seat

Did the Lib Dems put any effort at all into Stoke? Seems unlikely that they would; it would have been an uphill climb for them in a by-election in 2003.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Be careful about all early rumours from counts they're often... well... bad. In potentially all directions.

[Phony Moderate]

And if Labour hold on in Copeland a lot of people will have lost money due to believing such rumours. Pretty sure that wouldn't be a first.

[Pandaguineapig]

I highly doubt Corbyn leaves even if they also lose Stoke

[jaichind]

I highly doubt Corbyn leaves even if they also lose Stoke

Yeah.  And I really doubt LAB loses Stoke anyway so he is sticking around for a while.

[jaichind]

Of course if LAB loses Copeland then perhaps they might want to reconsider their strategy of talking about NHS as the basis of any election campaign.

[jaichind]

I saw this on a tweet



Looks like a good sign for LAB in Stoke

[jaichind]

Stokeby

LAB 37.1 (-2.2)
UKIP 24.7 (+2.0)
CON 24.3 (+1.8   )
LD 9.8 (+5.6)
GRN 1.4 (-2.2)
OTH 2.6

LAB-UKIP swing 2.1%
TO 38.1

[vileplume]

While Labour did win it is still a bad result for them despite their victory. Their vote share was down and there was a swing towards the Tories (whose vote share rose) despite them not really trying. Labour really have Paul Nuttall and UKIP's catastrophic campaign to thank for this pretty poor victory.