Voters go to the polls in Hamilton by-election

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting measure of the political climate in Scotland.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cded58237wzo

[Anchorman]

Interesting measure of the political climate in Scotland.

I note Farage only appeared in Larkhall....
I gather he went down a storm there.
Oh, what a surprise.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cded58237wzo

[Nearly Sane]

And another very interesting result. Disastrous for the Tories


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgqzdl8lxyo

[Free Willy]

And another very interesting result. Disastrous for the Tories


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgqzdl8lxyo

Can you shed any light why reform came third and why so many voted for them?

[Nearly Sane]

Can you shed any light why reform came third and why so many voted for them?

  Because people feel that the system is failing. 14 years of disastrous Tory govt, and SNP govt in Scotland with it's own problems and a Labour Govt in Westminster which Labour in Scotland has argued is taking actions it doesn't agree with.

The late David Penhaligon once said that he suspected a stuff then all party would do quite well, and Reform is tge closest there is to that.

[Free Willy]

  Because people feel that the system is failing. 14 years of disastrous Tory govt, and SNP govt in Scotland with it's own problems and a Labour Govt in Westminster which Labour in Scotland has argued is taking actions it doesn't agree with.

The late David Penhaligon once said that he suspected a stuff then all party would do quite well, and Reform is tge closest there is to that.

They certainly haven't been tainted by government and I suppose if they are in and make a mess of it they are easily removed.

[ProfessorDavey]

And another very interesting result. Disastrous for the Tories


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgqzdl8lxyo

What a strange angle to focus on NS. The reduction in the tory vote seems to be, at best, an afterthought in the media coverage, including your own link where the tories aren't even mentioned until virtually the end of the piece.

Surely the big stories here (as the rest of the media seems to agree) are:

1. That Labour won completely unexpectedly and against virtually all predictions.

2. The rise in Reform and

3. The collapse in the SNP vote

And on the third point - if you think that an 11% reduction in the tory vote (which took them from an irrelevant 3rd to an irrelevant 4th) was 'disastrous', surely the much greater (16%) reduction in the SNP vote which meant they went from winning to losing was far worse.

And to my mind the really interesting thing here is the vote shifts against the pre-election view that Reform would eat into the other unionist party votes (particularly Labour and the Tories) with the non-unionist SNP being reasonable immune. But that isn't what we saw at all - the overall rise to 26% in the votes for Reform almost perfectly balances the combined fall in the SNP (16%) and the tories (11%). Rather than the SNP being immune it was Labour who retained their vote-share pretty well, dropping just 2% and actually that can be accounted for by the other significant newbie, the Greens, whose 2.6% pretty well perfectly balances the reduction in Labour and the LibDems.

So the overall swing here is a major swing (26%) from SNP and tories to Reform and a much, much smaller (2.6%) swing from Labour/Lib-Dems to the Greens.

The point being that there seems to be plenty of ex-SNP voters happy to jump to Reform (against prediction) and if that holds at an overall Holyrood election that could have a very significant impact.

[Nearly Sane]

They certainly haven't been tainted by government and I suppose if they are in and make a mess of it they are easily removed.

The gaining of councils in the May council ekectio s in England will be an interesting test for them. It's a long way to the next Westminster election, and the problems they are having with personnel in their MOs and the resignation of the chairman illustrate that it is harder to play the way they have been up till now.

[ProfessorDavey]

They certainly haven't been tainted by government and I suppose if they are in and make a mess of it they are easily removed.

That's true, although we will see how they perform in local government in due course - early signs not looking good, such as in Kent with Reform cancelling a whole load of council meetings, whose job is to scrutinise spending while claiming that they are ... err ... scrutinising spending.

But I also wonder whether this result is a bit of a micro-version of what we might see more generally - Reform massively increasing vote share but not doing quite enough to win. I think they have a 'low ceiling' so to speak and there probably aren't sufficient voters sufficiently motivated to vote them in in comparison to the number of voters sufficiently motivated to move elsewhere to keep them out.

[ProfessorDavey]

The gaining of councils in the May council ekectio s in England will be an interesting test for them. It's a long way to the next Westminster election, and the problems they are having with personnel in their MOs and the resignation of the chairman illustrate that it is harder to play the way they have been up till now.

True - and I cannot see Farage keeping the ship together and afloat for another 4 years without major scandals and fallings out.

[Nearly Sane]

What a strange angle to focus on NS. The reduction in the tory vote seems to be, at best, an afterthought in the media coverage, including your own link where the tories aren't even mentioned until virtually the end of the piece.

Surely the big stories here (as the rest of the media seems to agree) are:

1. That Labour won completely unexpectedly and against virtually all predictions.

2. The rise in Reform and

3. The collapse in the SNP vote

And on the third point - if you think that an 11% reduction in the tory vote (which took them from an irrelevant 3rd to an irrelevant 4th) was 'disastrous', surely the much greater (16%) reduction in the SNP vote which meant they went from winning to losing was far worse.

And to my mind the really interesting thing here is the vote shifts against the pre-election view that Reform would eat into the other unionist party votes (particularly Labour and the Tories) with the non-unionist SNP being reasonable immune. But that isn't what we saw at all - the overall rise to 26% in the votes for Reform almost perfectly balances the combined fall in the SNP (16%) and the tories (11%). Rather than the SNP being immune it was Labour who retained their vote-share pretty well, dropping just 2% and actually that can be accounted for by the other significant newbie, the Greens, whose 2.6% pretty well perfectly balances the reduction in Labour and the LibDems.

So the overall swing here is a major swing (26%) from SNP and tories to Reform and a much, much smaller (2.6%) swing from Labour/Lib-Dems to the Greens.

The point being that there seems to be plenty of ex-SNP voters happy to jump to Reform (against prediction) and if that holds at an overall Holyrood election that could have a very significant impact.

I picked the most clear cut conclusion. As thecreport linked to there are various goid and bads issues with the other votes. You've assumed direct swings  i.e. that's the swings represent voymters moving from one party to another which you don't have enough evidence to conclude. Based on the votes in the Wrstminster by election, and the Geberal Election, not a perfect match but informative, it's a harder reading of whete the votes are going to and from.

[ProfessorDavey]

I picked the most clear cut conclusion.

But it isn't, is it NS.

The tory drop in vote share (11%) is much less than the SNP's (16%) and had miminal effect (moving them from a distant 3rd to a distant 4th). The SNP's larger loss of vote share shifted them from winning to losing.

How on earth can the tory result be the 'most clear cut conclusion' - seems only you think this. While the BBC piece you linked to did (eventually) mention the tory result, the radio news headlines didn't even mention the tories (why would they), as the big stories here are that Labour unexpectedly won due to the loss in vote share by the SNP and that Reform did really well, but not well enough to win as had been predicted by a fair few people.

[Nearly Sane]

True - and I cannot see Farage keeping the ship together and afloat for another 4 years without major scandals and fallings out.

it is harder to be the stuff them all party when on some places you are them. With the Scottish Oarliament elections less than a year away, and with the proportional element in them, there's a reasonable chance of Reform being the 3rd largest party. The most recent polls somehow manage to give the SNP/Greens block a majority though it's due to some oddities in the system, and isn't proportionate. Part of me wants enough Reform MSPs elected to make sure that their idiocy is exposed.

[ProfessorDavey]

You've assumed direct swings  i.e. that's the swings represent voymters moving from one party to another which you don't have enough evidence to conclude. Based on the votes in the Wrstminster by election, and the Geberal Election, not a perfect match but informative, it's a harder reading of whete the votes are going to and from.

True - but that is how swings are generally presented (remember the good old swingometer). You are correct that individuals voter shifts cannot easily be determined, but the overall swings here are major swings from SNP/Tories to Reform and minor swing from Labour/LibDem to Green.

[Nearly Sane]

But it isn't, is it NS.

The tory drop in vote share (11%) is much less than the SNP's (16%) and had miminal effect (moving them from a distant 3rd to a distant 4th). The SNP's larger loss of vote share shifted them from winning to losing.

How on earth can the tory result be the 'most clear cut conclusion' - seems only you think this. While the BBC piece you linked to did (eventually) mention the tory result, the radio news headlines didn't even mention the tories (why would they), as the big stories here are that Labour unexpectedly won due to the loss in vote share by the SNP and that Reform did really well, but not well enough to win as had been predicted by a fair few people.

As the link provided covered, it's not clear of the effect on the other parties. It's a good result in some ways for them all, and yet a disappointment for them. It's disastrous for the Tories because they have a low base to start with and this could lead to them being the 6th largest party on next year's elections.

[ProfessorDavey]

it is harder to be the stuff them all party when on some places you are them. With the Scottish Oarliament elections less than a year away, and with the proportional element in them, there's a reasonable chance of Reform being the 3rd largest party. The most recent polls somehow manage to give the SNP/Greens block a majority though it's due to some oddities in the system, and isn't proportionate. Part of me wants enough Reform MSPs elected to make sure that their idiocy is exposed.

What this by-election seems to have done is puncture the suggestion that Reform, as a unionist party, will be fishing pretty well exclusively in the unionist-voter pool. In other words having impacts on Labour, Tories and LibDems, but with the SNP being largely buffered.

Indeed there was a strong narrative that Reform would 'save' the SNP in this by-election as they would eat into Labour sufficiently to ensure that the SNP retained the seat as their vote was pretty 'immune' from Reform. But that isn't what happened at all. You cannot ignore the facts of this by-election - that the main overall swing was SNP/Tory to Reform.

[ProfessorDavey]

As the link provided covered, it's not clear of the effect on the other parties. It's a good result in some ways for them all, and yet a disappointment for them. It's disastrous for the Tories because they have a low base to start with and this could lead to them being the 6th largest party on next year's elections.

Now who is making sweeping generalisation. By-elections are funny beasts and parties with no hope of winning often get massively squeezed. That's the tories here - 3rd last time, not a chance of winning, so why vote for them. I don't think we'd see the same effect in a seat where they were the incumbent or were the obvious challenger to an incumbent.

I'm sorry but going from 3rd to 4th in a by-election with an 11% loss in voteshare is much less 'disastrous' than going from winning to losing with a 16% loss in voteshare.

The big winners here are Labour and Reform (in that order) - the big losers are SNP and the Tories (in that order).

[Nearly Sane]

What this by-election seems to have done is puncture the suggestion that Reform, as a unionist party, will be fishing pretty well exclusively in the unionist-voter pool. In other words having impacts on Labour, Tories and LibDems, but with the SNP being largely buffered.

Indeed there was a strong narrative that Reform would 'save' the SNP in this by-election as they would eat into Labour sufficiently to ensure that the SNP retained the seat as their vote was pretty 'immune' from Reform. But that isn't what happened at all. You cannot ignore the facts of this by-election - that the main overall swing was SNP/Tory to Reform.

Which as you have already accepted cannot be known what the move is in direct voters. You seem to be confusing clear cut with significant. I'm arguing that the clearest conclusion is that it is disastrous for the Tories. That there might be more significant things, I don't disagree  with but it's harder to be certain about what those are, particularly given the results in the similar seat in the Wrstminster bye election, and General Election.

[Nearly Sane]

Now who is making sweeping generalisation. By-elections are funny beasts and parties with no hope of winning often get massively squeezed. That's the tories here - 3rd last time, not a chance of winning, so why vote for them. I don't think we'd see the same effect in a seat where they were the incumbent or were the obvious challenger to an incumbent.

I'm sorry but going from 3rd to 4th in a by-election with an 11% loss in voteshare is much less 'disastrous' than going from winning to losing with a 16% loss in voteshare.

Only if you ignore the mich worse results for the SNP in the near equivalent Westminster by election, and General Election. And if you confuse clear cut with significant.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be confusing clear cut with significant. I'm arguing that the clearest conclusion is that it is disastrous for the Tories.

Despite the fact that the SNPs loss of voteshare was much greater and they lost the seat which they previously held. Your conclusion is clearly nonsense on stilts.

[Nearly Sane]

Despite the fact that the SNPs loss of voteshare was much greater and they lost the seat which they previously held. Your conclusion is clearly nonsense on stilts.

Any reason why you edited out the points about the,Westminster by election and general election?

[ProfessorDavey]

Any reason why you edited out the points about the,Westminster by election and general election?

Because it isn't relevant to the point you were making (clear cut conclusions from yesterday's by election) nor my response.

Actually there are only two clear cut conclusions from the by-election. First that Labour won the seat that they previously didn't hold and secondly that the SNP lost the seat which they previously held. The rest is all about interpretations of voteshare shifts and where non-winning parties finished in the pecking order.

But I am really struggling to understand how anyone could reasonably conclude that a party losing 11% voteshare and going from a non-winning 3rd to a non-winning 4th place is more disastrous than a party losing 16% voteshare and going from winning the seat to losing it.

But I guess the key word in that sentence is 'reasonable'.

[Nearly Sane]

Because it isn't relevant to the point you were making (clear cut conclusions from yesterday's by election) nor my response.

Actually there are only two clear cut conclusions from the by-election. First that Labour won the seat that they previously didn't hold and secondly that the SNP lost the seat which they previously held. The rest is all about interpretations of voteshare shifts and where non-winning parties finished in the pecking order.

But I am really struggling to understand how anyone could reasonably conclude that a party losing 11% voteshare and going from a non-winning 3rd to a non-winning 4th place is more disastrous than a party losing 16% voteshare and going from winning the seat to losing it.

But I guess the key word in that sentence is 'reasonable'.

So you think more recent votes on the area are not relevant. Interesting psephological approach.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you think more recent votes on the area are not relevant.

And which vote exactly is 'more recent' than the one that happened yesterday NS. I know on another thread we have been discussing the nature of time and how maybe it can run backwards but I think we are rather stretching a point don't you think.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to emphasise how unexpected Labour's victory was, these are the betting odds just before polling opened:

By-election Betting Odds · SNP. 1/8 · Reform. 9/2 · Labour. 10/1 · Conservatives. 100/1