Eastleigh By-Election

[minionofmidas]

Anyways, the LDs to come first or second, Labour third or fourth, UKIP anywhere from second to fourth, Tories anywhere from first to fourth. If this not very daring prediction be wrong I'll attempt to eat my infraction points.

I declare victory.

[You kip if you want to...]

Wonder if the Liberals can hold on here in 2015...

Any thoughts?

[minionofmidas]

Wonder if the Liberals can hold on here in 2015...

Any thoughts?

Unless UKIP improves even further or the LDs deteriorate even further (and, let's face it, a correction to the mean is more likely than a continued trendline on either of these but especially the first), I'd consider them clearly favored to.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lowest winning percentage in a by-election since universal suffrage. No. Since universal male suffrage.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think this is a bit disappointing for Labour, but it isn't the sort of seat that really matters to them.  Presumably some people who might have moved back to them from the LDs decided to stick with the lesser of two (or three) evils, and I can understand why they might have done this though I don't think I would have myself.  However, I think there's some anecdotal evidence that they also lost out to UKIP.

I think that's about right. It would have been nice to have done better, but I don't think the expense of making a serious effort could have been even half justified.

[Gary J]

Obviously the more significant candidates there are, the lower the percentage vote needed to win a first past the post election. I seem to recall that there were results in Papua New Guinea where single member, first past the post seats were won with as little as about 5% of the vote.

In the UK there have been general election results, where the winning candidate had a lower percentage vote than in the Eastleigh by-election; but probably not in England. Belfast North in the 1979 general election, is the lowest I have found in a quick and superficial search (27.6% according to F.W.S. Craig).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Portsmouth Central in 1922:

F.J. Privett, Tory, 26.9%
T. Fisher, National Liberal, 26.8%
T.A. Bramsdon, Liberal, 24.9% (incumbent)
A.G. Gourd, Labour, 21.4%

[YL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Lowest_winning_share_of_the_vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election_records#Lowest_winning_share_of_the_vote

As I thought, the record is Inverness, Nairn & Lochaber in 1992, won by the Lib Dems on just 26% of the vote in a very close four-way battle with Labour, the SNP and the Tories.  The English record appears to be the Portsmouth Central result already given by Al.

There were actually three seats in England in 2010 which were won on lower shares than in Eastleigh: Norwich South (LD 29.4%), Brighton Pavilion (Green 31.3%) and Oldham East & Saddleworth (Labour 31.9%; overturned on petition of course).  And there were four more (Great Grimsby, Hampstead & Kilburn, Brum Hall Green, Derby North) where the winning shares weren't much higher.

[Leftbehind]

Hopefully they'll become more common and deliver the entire UK PR.

[adma]

Well, I was the first in here to suggest, in effect: "Watch UKIP.  Seriously, watch UKIP".  (Look: when you're a S/SE England coastal Lab-wasteland/LD-held seat at a time when LD's even deeper in the overall pits than the Tories and it's a byelection...you can't get much more "watch UKIP" than that.)

[You kip if you want to...]

Obviously the more significant candidates there are, the lower the percentage vote needed to win a first past the post election. I seem to recall that there were results in Papua New Guinea where single member, first past the post seats were won with as little as about 5% of the vote.

In the UK there have been general election results, where the winning candidate had a lower percentage vote than in the Eastleigh by-election; but probably not in England. Belfast North in the 1979 general election, is the lowest I have found in a quick and superficial search (27.6% according to F.W.S. Craig).

Norwich South and it's not to find one in the Scottish results through the years.

[Benj]

Obviously the more significant candidates there are, the lower the percentage vote needed to win a first past the post election. I seem to recall that there were results in Papua New Guinea where single member, first past the post seats were won with as little as about 5% of the vote.

In the UK there have been general election results, where the winning candidate had a lower percentage vote than in the Eastleigh by-election; but probably not in England. Belfast North in the 1979 general election, is the lowest I have found in a quick and superficial search (27.6% according to F.W.S. Craig).

Norwich South and it's not to find one in the Scottish results through the years.

Brighton Pavilion and Oldham East and Saddleworth in 2010 alone as well in England. And Argyll and Bute in Scotland in 2010 as well.

By my count, there have been 5 such results in England total (the 3 in 2010 and 2 in 1922, in Portsmouth Central and East Ham North). There have also been 7 such results scattered through the years in Scotland, 2 in Wales, and 3 in Northern Ireland.

[saintjuste1791]

As I thought, the record is Inverness, Nairn & Lochaber in 1992, won by the Lib Dems on just 26% of the vote in a very close four-way battle with Labour, the SNP and the Tories.  The English record appears to be the Portsmouth Central result already given by Al.

There were actually three seats in England in 2010 which were won on lower shares than in Eastleigh: Norwich South (LD 29.4%), Brighton Pavilion (Green 31.3%) and Oldham East & Saddleworth (Labour 31.9%; overturned on petition of course).  And there were four more (Great Grimsby, Hampstead & Kilburn, Brum Hall Green, Derby North) where the winning shares weren't much higher.

I thought the point was the lowest by-election margins, so the 1992 and 2010 results you mention do not count...

[adma]

Haven't there also been some "rogue independent Labour incumbent" circumstances in 1992 and the like driving winning shares really far down?

[YL]

Haven't there also been some "rogue independent Labour incumbent" circumstances in 1992 and the like driving winning shares really far down?

I guess you're thinking of Coventry South East, 1992:

Jim Cunningham (Lab) 11,902 (32.6%)
Martine Hyams (Con) 10,591 (29.0%)
Dave Nellist (Ind Lab) 10,551 (28.9%)
Tony Armstrong (Lib Dem) 3,318 (9.0%)
Norman Tomkinson (NF) 173 (0.5%)

In general elections, that's the sixth lowest English entry on the Wikipedia list (after the two in 1922 and three in 2010) and it's just higher than the Eastleigh winning share.

[You kip if you want to...]