The Local Government Chronicle has today published research on how the Lib Dems (and others) have fared in local by-elections since May.
It’s useful to note as there’s been some disagreement. Lib Dems have been pointing to victories and holds as evidence that, where the party campaigns, its vote is holding up very well. Opponents have disagreed (not least in comments on this site) and suggested evidence is being cherry-picked and the Lib Dems vote is actually falling.
Here’s what the research says (as reported by Paul Waugh in the Evening Standard since the LGC site is subscription-only access).
In the 17 by-elections for council seats held since May and contested by the Lib Dems, the party has gained six, held nine and lost two, giving a net gain of four seats.
The gains have primarily come at the expense of the Conservatives, who have lost a net seven seats from the 28 they have contested. Labour has made the most headway in local votes, gaining nine seats and losing one in the 24 that it has contested.
Furthermore, the Lib Dems’ national equivalent vote at the by-elections – a projected national vote share based on the local results – has held steady at 25%. This is the same level as was recorded at the local elections in May and those of the previous year.
It is also significantly higher than the party is registering in opinion polls. The YouGov daily tracker has consistently placed the party below 15% throughout August and September.
The research does not include yesterday’s results which saw the Lib Dems hold two and make one gain at the Tories’ expense, nor the party’s two holds in Town Council by-elections.
However, as Mark Pack has frequently mentioned, you can’t achieve much if you don’t field a candidate, and the party should be concerned at only standing in 17 seats compared to the Conservatives’ 28 and Labour’s 24.
44 Comments
I am quite happy for the media and the Labour party to write us off as it makes it so much easier to gain seats from their complacent local Candidates!
“In the 17 by-elections for council seats held since May and contested by the Lib Dems, the party has gained six, held nine and lost two, giving a net gain of four seats.”
Sorry, I don’t understand that at all. According to the ALDC the Lib Dems contested 10 seats yesterday, 31 last week (which was admittedly exceptional), 4 the previous week and 6 the week before that. Why would there be only 17 by-elections in this sample? Was the study done several months ago, or what?
Possibly only included city / district councils and not town and parish elections
And how much has the Tory vote fallen by? Say, in areas where the Lib Dems are first and Labour second, or Labour first and the Lib Dems second?
Tories are now willing to vote tactically for Lib Dems, which has its own set of problems (which you’d be wise to consider, rather than blindly holding on to the idea that actually everything is just super.)
The result in Earls Court really is exceptional. This is a ward where it is practically impossible to campaign. Almost everyone lives behind entryphones, about half the population are foreign nationals, and those who are UK subjects tend to be hard Tory. Yet we did win, and I can imagine activists from across the country will be keen to learn the campaign team’s successful techniques.
Yes, we probably would be doing better if we were not propping up the Tory government, but our performance continues to encourage, nonetheless.
If Ed Miliband wins the Labour leadership, he is (a) going to have to reward the trade unions for their support and (b) explain how a Labour government could increase public expenditure, which is what he appears to be advocating. Somehow I am glad we are not attempting to be in coalition with that shower.
“Possibly only included city / district councils and not town and parish elections”
Even on that basis, the Lib Dems would have contested more than 17 by-elections by early July!
‘Possibly only included city / district councils and not town and parish elections’
Might be so but a win is still a win and hold still a hold even in town and parish elections. It still shows we can hold & win seats regardless of the constant attacks.
The figures from the ALDC site show an interesting picture Total number of all seats City,District town and Parish and what ever else the ALDC count as a contested Election.
LibDems Won 23 Held 29 Lost 12 Tot number of Votes 51722
Labour Won 14 Held 30 Lost 4 Tot number of Votes 59012
Cons Won 15 Held 25 Lost 26 Tot number of Votes 57412
(these are based on an unchecked spreadsheet…not had the time)
This from the Independent seems to support my theory-
“A calculation based on six wards fought both times by all three major parties gives a line-up of: Lab 37.5%, C 30.5%, Lib Dem 22.0%.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-tumble-to-labour-and-lib-dems-in-nottinghamshire-byelection-2082114.html
The difference between the Conservative support in the polls and their actual vote is almost exactly the same as the difference between Lib Dem support in the polls and their actual vote. Tactical voters who remain Conservative supporters are to blame.
@Mike(The Labour one)
“Tactical voters … are to blame.
You seem to have a rather arrogant way of speaking about swing voters, if you don’t mind me saying so. Why should anyone be to blame for how they vote? Surely voting is something for which one should not be blamed in a democracy? Unless there is only one true religion?
Should I pretend I think they’re doing the right thing? And it’s tactical voters, not swing voters, they’re different things. People who support the Conservatives but vote Lib Dem as an anti-Labour vote. If people want to do that they’re entitled, but of course I think they’re wrong.
The point is that the triumphalism of this post is completely misplaced- the disagreement isn’t that the Lib Dem vote isn’t falling dramatically, it’s that new Tory tactical voters account for it. Genuine independent Lib Dem support isn’t holding up.
That second “isn’t” should be an “is”. The vote is holding up more than the support because of Tory tactical voters. Actual support isn’t holding up.
Mike(The Labour one) “Genuine independent Lib Dem support isn’t holding up.”
Or perhaps genuine independent Lib Dem support is holding up. But tactical soft Labour vote has fallen, and tactical soft Tory vote has risen.
@Mike(Keep the Labour one)
“Should I pretend I think they’re doing the right thing?”
What pokes me in the eye there is that subjective pronoun. All about yourself, no thought about how the voter might see things differently.
“The result in Earls Court really is exceptional.”
The trouble is that local by-election results vary so wildly, and last night’s also included an exceptionally bad one in Hackney, where the Lib Dem vote fell from 15.6% to 2.2%, also since May.
With this kind of thing going on, a sample as small as 17 seats is going to result in a huge statistical error – even if the sample has been chosen on a reasonable basis, and we still don’t know how it has been chosen.
In a Hackney byelection last night in which the lib dem vote fell by a factor of 10 – from 600+ to 60-something. My suggestion would be that where it is a Lib Dem v Tory fight or where Tories can vote Lib Dem to keep Labour out your vote will indeed be holding up. So, no you won’t sdisappear.
But in the Newcastles and Liverpools of this world – as well as trendy lefty North London you should expect to be slaughtered.
@George Kendall: It’s likely to be a mixture of things, sure. But the sudden support of the Tories looks most significant. Any alternative theories for why the Tories are 7% down in votes compared to support in the polls while the Lib Dems are 7% up in votes compared to the polls?
What I think: Supporters of the coalition are more likely to unite behind one candidate in areas where Labour is a threat, Tories more so than the Lib Dem supporters. Whether that’s good or bad for you depends on your point of view and where you’d like your party to go. I’m sure Clegg won’t lose any sleep over having to appeal to Tory tactical voters for the long term.
The note of caution with local election results is always that there is still more of a “personal” type vote in these than there is for the national results, which can account for dramatic slumps in vote as in Hackney. While the results do look good for us, I’d still treat an extrapolation across the whole of the country with a good deal of caution.
@Paul McKeown: “What pokes me in the eye there is that subjective pronoun. All about yourself, no thought about how the voter might see things differently.”
They’re perfectly free to see things differently. So what? I’m not their representative am I? Do you really need me to write “The following views posted by this poster are the views of this poster” before every comment?
On the contrast between “The Polls” & these findings, it all depends on which polls. If we look at ICM there is no contrast, both suggest that Libdems are where we were this time last year.
On tactical Vs swing voters, how can we tell when they probably dont know themselves. If a voter votes Tory in one election then Libdem for the next three at what point do they change from Tactical Tory, to Swing voter, to Libdem ?
No, but I don’t expect you to come out with “tactical voters are to blame”. Voters are not to blame; they make their choice, whether you agree with it or not. The rest is just emotional projection, the sheep aren’t doing what they’re told.
All I have to say,
“But in the Newcastles and Liverpools of this world – as well as trendy lefty North London you should expect to be slaughtered.”
Yet another Labour tribalist with the gift of prophecy. I guess if you believe, like Marx, that socialism is inevitable, it aint too hard to fill in the missing links in the pre-determined chain of causation.
But wait! Here we have a socialist using the right-wing sneer term of the 1960’s and 1970’s, “trendy lefty”! A curious sobriquet to attach to the people of Hackney, most of whom are working-class and on low incomes.
People in Liverpool and Newcastle will vote as they choose, not how some Labour troll commands them.
@Iain Roberts
Are you going to answer Anthony Aloysius St point? Or is this article just another flag waving exercise on your part, to rally the troops?
jayu
I presume he’s as much in the dark as the rest of us, as the details are on a subscription site.
@Jayu
Well, without wanting to put words in the Saint’s mouth, he seems to be having two bites at the cherry, first complaining that there have been many more by-elections than suggested by the author of the post, then when the figures are given including parish by-elections, he reverts to the seventeen by-elections originally examined. His argument that seventeen, or indeed sixty four, elections with generally low turn-outs are not particularly significant, is of course, true. But then, it does also rather make a mockery of much of the dunder-headed propaganda that we have been subjected to by various Labour bellowbags. I’m sure you are on the verge of yapping on about “wipeout”, bla bla bla, but really don’t bother, mate, there is nothing of significance to suggest that either. We can all gaze at the crystal ball, but, frankly, let’s not bother talking nonsense, please.
@jayu – the study was conducted by Rallings and Thrasher for the LGC, so they would be the people to query for detailed questions of methodology and sample sizes. The study shows what it shows, and assuming the methodology is the same, can be used to compare how the Lib Dems and other parties are doing in local elections compared to previous years. If anyone suggests that it shows more than that, they probably don’t understand these things very well.
There is certainly something wrong with the stats of 17 contests of which 6 are gains, 9 holds and 2 losses: it implies that we didn’t contest any seats which we didn’t previously hold, and didn’t gain. Yet I contested one myself last month.
@paul barker: Yes, that isn’t the point- the gap is between what you’re polling now and the votes you’re getting now.
I would say someone is a tactical voter if they support a party but vote another party for tactical reasons. By the polls, a higher percentage identifies with the Conservative outside of the context of an immediate election than have voted for them recently. A lower percentage identifies with the Lib Dems than have voted for them recently.
@Paul McKeown: Point out where I’ve said they shouldn’t be able to make their choice. I’ve been clear- I think it’s a mistake to vote Lib Dem, I don’t think it’s a positive thing that your party hasn’t withered away. People can vote for what they want, doesn’t mean I have to like it or think it’s a positive thing to vote that way. Choice goes both ways- they can choose, and I can criticise. I can choose, and they can criticise.
@Iain Roberts
With all due respect it seems you yourself, are struggling to to fully understand the survey and its findings. At that is my point. Why write an article, and invite comments, when you seem to have little understanding, and lack the ability to offer any enlightenment?
I posted the figures I’d calculated from ALDC’s information up to the end of August on a previous thread. There were 25 principal council elections between the general election and the end of August which were contested by all three parties and which had also been contested by them at the previous local election in that ward. Labour had 40.4% of the vote (+6.0%); the Conservatives 32.8% (-3.9%); and the Liberal Democrats 26.8% (-1.9%). Where the figures in the Local Government Chronicle come from I have no idea.
@Labour Mike
I did. You chose to “blame” voters.
Also, here’s an interesting thought: every time politicians want to win elections, they start “speaking liberal”, either describing themselves as a “liberal conservative” or campaigning on a platform of devolution of power and liberal social reforms. However, neither of these parties could really be described as liberal, and make these sops to liberal political ideas to sweep up the Lib Dem vote which is needed in some seats. Now that the Lib Dems are in government, despite Labour noise, perhaps more people are beginning to realize that the claim “a Lib Dem vote is a wasted vote” is false…
@Paul McKeown: You did no such thing. Look, this isn’t a long comments section, if I’ve said that people shouldn’t be allowed to make choices I disagree with post the quote. They can vote for who they want, nevertheless I think voting Lib Dem isn’t the right choice and will lead to a less moral country.
“The study shows what it shows, and assuming the methodology is the same, can be used to compare how the Lib Dems and other parties are doing in local elections compared to previous years. If anyone suggests that it shows more than that, they probably don’t understand these things very well.”
That last sentence really is a bit rich, coming from someone who has just written an article about a survey whose methodology he evidently doesn’t understand, and whose details he has copied and pasted at second hand from the Evening Standard because the original report is on a subscription site!
“then when the figures are given including parish by-elections, he reverts to the seventeen by-elections originally examined”
What on earth are you on about?
@all
just a thought chaps.
All the Evening standard Polls I have normally seen often refer to LONDON events only.
Could this possibly just be by elections in LONDON ????
@Iain
Why are ALL your posts based around the premise that the Coalition is brilliant and that we have no problems at all . (The Privatisation of the Royal mail being a success for our policies one semed to be an exceptional piece of propeganda).
Can you please just say one thing bad that you think about the coalition so i know your trying to take a balanced view with your postings.
(I said that IDS had shown exceptional insight on a posting today … if I can admit to there being good things surely you can admit to their being some bad) .
I can think of various _possible_ explanations for the fact that their sample included only 17 by-elections – some of which would imply the sample was untypical. But I’m not sure there’s much point speculating.
What we know for sure is that with a sample that small, and with the results of individual contests varying so wildly, the average isn’t going to give us reliable information.
Why not just look at the ACTUAL figures, which I have provided above, which show Labour doing well, us doing moderately well (i.e. not collapsing like we have in the opinion polls and the minds of the commentariat) and the Tories doing significantly worse than we are?
And Tony Hill has usefully said, there were 25 PRINCIPAL (ie County, District, Unitary) byelections, which had been contested both this and last time by all three parties – so that a like with like comparison can be made – between the GE and end of August. Now, although I no longer take LGC, I know that Thrasher and Rallings publish a survey once a month, so it is quite reasonable to assume that the figures are two, three or even four weeks predating Tony’s download. I also know that T and R ONLY use Principal Councils for comparison purposes, and only on the basis above, so they have some statistical consistency. 17 would be an entirely reasonable figure for earlier in August / end July. Iain himself mentions we only stood 17 out of a potential number of seats up for grabs (in principal councils) of 28. By the way, since when have ALDC started formally counting and recording Parish and Town results? A more meaningless waste of time I can hardly think of.
“Why not just look at the ACTUAL figures, which I have provided above, which show Labour doing well, us doing moderately well (i.e. not collapsing like we have in the opinion polls and the minds of the commentariat) and the Tories doing significantly worse than we are?”
Of course, the problem with interpreting those figures is that the percentage change relates to when the seat was last fought, so you are averaging over changes from several different years. And 25 is almost as small a sample as 17, considering how variable the results are.
On the whole I don’t think you can tell very much at all from local by-elections, though both sides of the argument will be able to find ammunition in them. Opinion polls may have their problems, and may differ among themselves, but they have to give a better indication than clutching at these straws in the wind (to mix metaphors).
Sure, the comparable election could have been in 2007, 2008 or 2009, all years when we registering a higher figure in the opinion polls than we are today. Certainly one would expect a significant increase in the Labour vote given their poor showing in local elections in those years. In addition, if last weeks abysmal results for us in Exeter and Norwich were factored in then our figure would look much worse than the one I quoted. What I was trying to do, though, was to bring a bit of clarity into the discussion which seemed mired in head-scratching about where the figures had come from, although the actual figures which I quoted do actually justify the story’s headline.
“Sure, the comparable election could have been in 2007, 2008 or 2009, all years when we registering a higher figure in the opinion polls than we are today.”
Well, if you believe in opinion polls, you can look at the Lib Dems’ opinion poll ratings in May 2007, 2008 and 2009, and subtract 2 points from the average. That gives around 20% if you use ICM’s figures, and around 15% if you use YouGov’s. Not really the same as 25%.
But then again, if you believe in opinion polls, why not just look at the current ones, rather than going through this indirect procedure, based on what is still a very small sample of local by-elections, with all the problems of low turnout and unrepresentatively intensive campaigning that that implies?
So what you are objecting to really is the use of the word ‘projected’ in the headline to this story? For the record, I think you are right.
Interesting ! A 25% “projected vote”. What doe s the real vote show ? Projected tends to mean an optimistic forecast . Does the real vote not show around about 11 to 12% and falling ?