“And sorry to be thick again, but are you saying that the data really does support a conclusion that there was a greater stay away from the polls than might have otherwise have been expected, suggesting that a positive voter boycott (from disgust with Labour/the expenses scandal/whatever it may be) was an important factor rather than more general apathy? ”
I wasn’t particularly focusing on that when I put out the data (I was more working on refuting that this was a high-turnout election), and it would be limited in use given that it only focuses on this Parliament. What I will say, though, is if you compare to results from, say, 1997-2001, this sort of drop in turnout is around what is generally expected, and indeed is lower than many similar by-elections in that period.

Are you stalking me online or something Stu

It seems where ever I might post about the UKLP you then post & I’m not telling you where I post

Anyways the Lib Dems are doing fine we get MPs elected unlike the UKL:P who lose their deposit

“The best measure, if you’re going to be really accurate, has to be the proportion of voters who stayed home this time but voted last time. And admittely, Norwich North DOES do better on this one with its 24.9%.”

Sorry to be thick, but please can you explain this a bit more? How do you arrive at this figure?

And sorry to be thick again, but are you saying that the data really does support a conclusion that there was a greater stay away from the polls than might have otherwise have been expected, suggesting that a positive voter boycott (from disgust with Labour/the expenses scandal/whatever it may be) was an important factor rather than more general apathy?

On a wider point, I am always a little amazed that nationally significant by-elections generating masses of concentrated local political activity (visits by party leaders etc) and the opportunity for ordinary voters to make a direct impact on the national political discourse get such lower turnouts than General Elections where that constituency may go almost entirely unnoticed. Which goes to show I suppose how far removed all political activists are from the level of non-interest and alienation from politics most people are at.

On the other hand, I would be worried if I was a “Lib” Dem. You really should be doing better than this, with both the Tories and Labour being so unpopular. You could probably do better if you were a liberal party – but you’re not. It seems quite a few Lib Dems have realised this recently (including one former councillor) and are coming over to us.

Let’s just take the by-elections from this Parliament, for simplicity – there have been thirteen since the last general election.

Now, there are a few indicators that can be used. Firstly, the raw turnout figure. Norwich North, at 45.9%, is seventh out of thirteen – plumb in the middle. Not exactly impressive when you consider that many of the elections below it were safe seats (Ealing Southall, Sedgefield, Livingston, Haltemprice and Howden), while every single ballot above it was in some way competitive bar maybe Henley.

But hey, raw turnout isn’t a great indicator; it’s quotable, but it isn’t great. How about the change in turnout? At -15.2%, again, Norwich North comes…er, seventh, in the middle. And although the names are a bit different this time, what I said earlier applies; hell, it lags far behind the other big Labour calamities such as Crewe and Nantwich (-1.8%0, Glasgow East (-5.9%) and Dunfermline and West Fife (-12.0%).

The best measure, if you’re going to be really accurate, has to be the proportion of voters who stayed home this time but voted last time. And admittely, Norwich North DOES do better on this one with its 24.9%.

Shame it only goes up one ranking, to sixth.

The Norwich North turnout, in general for a by-election, was average. For a fiercely competitive election? It was bloody awful.

In fact, it’s interesting to speculate how low could a party go in terms of % of vote ,and still win an out right majority. Say party (A) got 20% of the vote, and another 8 parties got 10% of the vote each ,how big would party A’s majority be? 50 seat majority? And is it right that 80% could vote against the party who becomes the govt?

Whoever wins the next election ,one thing is certain. The vast majority of the people will not have voted for them.

Actually Jim Jay says that 45% was a rather good turnout for a by-election. Anybody have any quotable data to confirm that?

For

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/support-the-PM/

Against

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

Note that many of the names in the “For” petition look a bit unlikely. Number 10 quickly remove the spam names from the other petition to keep it as short as they can. However, the ratio against Mr Brown is huge!

There is still time for you to vote here, so make the most of it.

Also, if you agree with this petition, please tell others about it, and tell them to spread the word as well. This is the way to get it really moving.

All of the main candidates saw large reductions in their votes from the general election despite the media hype about the importance of the general election.

The winning candidate scored 39% of a 45% turnout. That’s 18% of the elctorate. Hardly a mandate.

Despite all the hype and a real increase in their vote the Greens scored only 5% of the electorate’s vote – in a race they were claiming they could win.

I wonder if many people have just had enough of the lot of them?

> Brighton Pavillion and Norwich South Sadly I don’t think we’ll win more than that.

You’re probably right, but I reckon we’ve an outside chance in Oxford East. Emphasis on “outside” though, and I have a record of being overoptimistic.

“Now, if I were the leader of a political party I would be asking the serious, yet simple question – why [there was a 20% lower turnout]?”

I think the answers simple I’m afraid. It’s a by election and by election turnouts are always lower because many people see them as a second class election because you’re not voitng for the government.

45% isn’t bad for a by election to be honest and I’d assumed there was going to be a large abstention because of Ian Gibson. That doesn’t seem to have happened.

@62 jailhouselawyer

“I cannot help but wonder what the result would have been but for all the wasted votes?”

Riots at the rigged election perhaps? The storming of the town hall demanding people’s votes are counted? Sounds fun.

Votes cast for candidate that don’t win are not wasted – they are cast by voters for the party they feel best represents them. If you want to advocate STV go ahead but right now it sounds like you’re arguing that parties don’t have a right to stand if they can’t get first or second place (although how you know this before the election, who knows).

WE DON’T ACCEPT YOUR RIGHT TO A DUOPOLY! Get it??

There were 14,543 votes wasted by the electorate on candidates who were no hopers in the contest. The total is larger than the Conservative winning share. I cannot help but wonder what the result would have been but for all the wasted votes? It still may have been a 2 to 1 victory for the Tories over labour. There again, it may have been a case of neck and neck with the votes being equally shared.

The increase in legislation adversely impacts the work of the self employed /SME not the labour voting government employee or “City ” employed Tory voter. The increasing H and S legislation, screening /vetting /insurance premiums/local government control infuriates those who organise local events -scouts/guides, carnivals etc,etc. I have known people who used to teach evening classes in local schools go private because they are fed up with local council regulations.

Any political party who can obtain support from the self employed/SME (SE/SME) who takes an active part in the local community could attract plenty of votes . At the moment , I would suggest UKIP is beginning to attract SE/SME and if they adopt such people as candidates who have a repution for local community activity( running sports clubs, scout/guides, drama groups etc , etc)they could take the craftsmen/foremen vote from Labour and the SE/SME vote from the LDs and Tories.

Labour is largely impractical, whose politicians are largely impractical and lives in a paper reality. Look at the problem with tax credits. Could not Labour have just modified child benefit? Many SE/SME just do not think labour has spent the money well. When shopkeepers tell me that schoolchildren cannot add up 6 items using pen and paper, then they do not consider education has improved.

If Labour could return to a more practical , realistic, down to earth politics which enabled the aspirational, hardworking and honest working/lower middle classes a promise of a better quality of life, then they could win. After 65 years of the welfare state , the labour party alienate many aspirational , hardworking and honest working class/lower middle classes who work in the private sector; by believing that the money on 2 or 3rd generation welfare dependent families is their tax money well spent. In addition, many working class/lower middle class people see in the increase in white and middle class employment with thir index linked pensions 25 day holidays /yr and consider that tax is being wasted.

Historically , the working class tory has existed because the left wing white middle class has often been disparaging about their traditional view of life; their vote could now go to UKIP . If Labour want to win; they need to reconnect to the aspirational, hardworking and honest working/lower middle classes who often have more traditional social views than metropolitan left wing middle classes; then they need to change. People like this are often well respected in the community and if they vote Labour , then they can often persuade others to do so.

People did not vote en masse!

Now, if I were the leader of a political party I would be asking the serious, yet simple question – why?

To us plebs it is obvious – regardless of the joy of the Tory support or the dismay of the NuLab support. The difference here was the low turn out – and come a general election the party that gets those people out have a chance of a win.

The numbers are there to look at and analyse – a smack in the teeth for NuLab, yes – but if NuLab moves way over to the left – as people want, you really don’t know what could happen.

The party that attacks the banks and bankers/City and looks to attack both working-class, middle-class poverty and insecurity has a real chance of winning power come the next GE.

If the status Quo sits – the Tories are in with a landslide. Until the next recession in about – late 2012.

One united Left wing party in this country would not be permanently guaranteed a majority.

The Craig Murray campaign managed to get the evidence that their chap was the clearest speaker and best debater up on the web about an hour before the polls closed. Ho-hum… Anyway, what use are those skills in today’s House of Commons?

I do understand your point about electoral success in such a manner not leading to change necessarily; allow me to back up your point by pointing to the fact that the election of a Constitution state senator did little for the party in the US, and on a higher level a socialist senator has done nothing for American socialism.

However, personally (and I don’t think the Greens agree with me on this one), it’s not necessarily what they do in Parliament, it’s that the attempt to (and success in) getting them in is where the good lies, as it energises the left and helps to enhance their voice by giving them a common purpose and common organisation, at least for a time.

And, of course, it does definitely keep Labour on their toes. The problem with challenging them at a local level is that although relatively speaking the Greens gain a lot, Labour really lose very little if they’re still unchallenged at Westminster. Local election results are somewhat overhyped in their importance, IMHO.

Should Westminster be the party’s primary purpose? Of course not; yet, there is something to be said for not ignoring it completely.

Regarding your opposition point – indeed, it’s not necessarily a good thing, but it can be. Labour can react in different ways to period of opposition – sure, there was 1979-1997, but at the same time there was 1935-1945. Is it a gamble? Perhaps, but it’s a gamble that we may need to take.