Ealing Southall and Sedgefield by-elections thread

[Verily]

The Conservative candidate in Sedgefield will be Graham Robb. There has been a lot of buzz about Reg Keys running for the Lib Dems in Sedgefield, but nothing is confirmed.

IMO, the Conservatives should screw up the nomination papers and give the Lib Dems a free run at Sedgefield. The Conservatives stand absolutely no chance of winning (especially with an aristocratic French translator as their candidate), but Labour losing Sedgefield to the Lib Dems would be a problem for Brown. (And the perfect storm for the opponents of Labour would be Labour losing Ealing Southall to the Conservatives and Sedgefield to the Lib Dems.)

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um... why would they want to do that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The LibDems don't stand much of a chance either. The thing about Sedgefield is that in a majority of the constituency, only one party ever polls above single digits. There are plenty of non-Labour voters in the Darlington commuter villages and in Sedgefield itself, but not in Newton Aycliffe (the biggest town in the constituency). And there are even less of them in the string of old pit villages between Spennymoor and Peterlee (where during General Elections, little red signs sprout up like weeds just about everywhere).
In all honesty, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the BNP finished second in Sedgefield.

I don't hold any delusions that the Lib Dems are likely to win in Sedgefield, either, but even the Lib Dems doing an inch better than the Tory, LD and Keys votes from 2005 combined would be seen as a blow to Brown when he's currently ahead of Labour's 2005 numbers in the polls.

The Tories would want to give the Lib Dems a free run because the Lib Dems can do better than the Tories there; the key is that the Tories haven't a hope of even making Sedgefield close (can't squeeze the Lib Dem vote effectively, can't win over Labour or Keys voters) while the Lib Dems can at least pull within 10% of Labour. Bad news for Labour is good news for the Conservatives, so the Conservatives would want to pull out of Sedgefield. IIRC, Labour used this same by-election strategy against the Conservatives in safe Conservative seats in the 90s.

I would be very surprised if the BNP finished second in Sedgefield.

[Verily]

UKIP will be wasting its time in both by-elections. They didn't even stand in Ealing Southall in 2005. I can't imagine them winning more than 2% in either by-election, and that may be generous.

http://ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=3089

[Verily]

The Greens have renominated Sarah Edwards, their 2005 candidate, in Ealing Southall. She pulled a sizeable 4.6% in 2005, nearly retaining her deposit. The Lib Dems and Labour will obviously both be trying to squeeze her vote.

[Verily]

Andrew Spence will be running for the BNP in Sedgefield. Surprisingly, they didn't manage to run a candidate last time.

[Verily]

The English Democrats will be running in both seats, Stephen Gash in Sedgefield and one of two candidates on a shortlist in Ealing Southall. After a dismal performance in what should be English Democrat "heartland", Bromley and Chislehurst, they will have no influence at all.

The Liberal Democrats are running Greg Stone in Sedgefield.

[Verily]

Virendra Sharma - a Hindu, not a Sikh - will be Labour's candidate in Ealing Southall. RESPECT's candidate is Salvinder Dhillon. The OMRLP will be running John Cartright.

[Verily]

FWIW, the Tories haven't gained a seat in a by-election since 1982, and that seat was won a) during the Falklands War and b) from Bruce Douglas-Mann, a Labour-to-SDP defector who stood down to win a new mandate and subsequently split the vote with Labour. Douglas-Mann had only very narrowly gained the seat from the Conservatives in the previous general election.

Merton, Mitcham and Morden by-election, 1982

[Verily]

How diverse is Southall's Asian community?

Dave

This data is either for the old or the new seat

Hindu: 12.4%
Muslim: 13.3%
Sikh: 23.2%

That is a % of the total population.

Thanks

There's a substantial Chinese population, too; around 6% IIRC.

[Verily]

...so maybe it'd be a good idea for one of the parties to run a non-subcontinent heritage candidate? Selecting a candidate on the basis of race is unfortunate, but it would make political sense for one of the big three to nominate someone of a different ethnicity.

The problem is, of course, that Indians will not vote for non-Indians, but non-Indians are perfectly willing to vote for Indians.

It's been interesting to hear that minority (Indian) turnout is expected to be higher than majority (European) turnout. I wonder whether that will pan out. I would expect it to help Labour if it does since Labour has the Hindus as a solid block and at least half of the Sikhs despite defections (plus maybe 1/3 of Muslims, with the rest splitting between the Lib Dems and RESPECT).

[Verily]

Well it's been a 25 year wait for a by-election gain from Labour. If we don't do it this time I can wait a little longer

The IDS report and it's recomendations might help the Tories a bit on the street. A significant chunk of my own vote in May, I've been told, came form working class areas. To go in there and be honest and engage them when everyone else (Labour included) gives them a miss because they 'always vote Labour' can reap dividends. As long as the economy ticks over, a large number of ex-Tories will vote Labour. It's our job to appeal to the working poor , the dispossed and the young left behind by Labour to make up for the shortfall.

Regardless of what happens and how it happened, it's been a good campaign so far.

But on the subject of Ealing, yes it sounds horribly factious, but thats doesn't detract from what could be one of the best campaigns ran by the Tories in years (he said before Ealing became yet another LibDem shock by-election victory ).

It doesn't strike me as being a good Tory campaign at all. (Cheadle was a good Tory campaign, but they still lost.) The Tories have benefited from idiotic local politicians who have nothing better to do with their time than snipe at each other.

Tony Lit's father did well in 2001 because he's a wealthy owner of a radio station that ran pseudo-advertisements (not legally advertisements, but essentially the same thing) for him throughout the campaign. He basically bought all of his votes. Lit is nothing special.

[Verily]

Most of the Green vote in that seat from 2001 voted BNP in 2005.

Has the BNP ever run a non-Anglo-Saxon candidate (that anyone's aware of)?  Based on their name and what I know about them, I could seem them not objecting to native Scots, Welshmen and Ulstermen ("they can't help that they were born here," or rather "we can't help that they [and their ancestors] were born here" - I'm trying to sound like a English racist).  I'd be pretty surprised if they'd ever run a non-white candidate, although if the person was like a 5th Generation or more Briton and could argue that the party was not rasist, just nativist (positive spin on xenophobic), I could see them being nominated somewhere.

There was a BNP councillor (something Ebanks) who was kicked out of the party last year when it was revealed she had an African grandparent. That pretty answers that question, I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Registration of Political Parties Act prevents candidates or parties from using names that are likely to cause confusion with registered political parties. The law was passed after a bunch of candidates ran as "Literal Democrats" and "The Conversative Party" in 1997 to intentionally cause confusion. "British Nationalist Party" would certainly be deemed too similar to "British National Party".

[Verily]

Just when you thought the Ealing Southall by-election couldn't get any wierder...

It's just emerged that Lit donated Labour £4,800 last month.

And there's a nice picture of him smiling with Tony Blair, too. I think the Tories can kiss this by-election good-bye.

[Verily]

The following post appeared on Tom Watson's blog earlier today:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wonder what it could be?

Dave

Tony Lit defects to... well, anyone. That would be both surprising and completely expected.

[Verily]

Interesting but unsurprising. Sedgefield is a pretty typical lower middle class seat with very few wealthy voters. Ealing Southall is extremely wealthy on one end and poor on the other with a broad spectrum in between. It reminds me of my city.

[Verily]

We have a turnout report from Sedgefield from BBC Look North: Less than 50%

It would have been shocking to have turnout above 50%, I think. Still, in order for it to be anything but a safe Labour hold, turnout has to be at around 40% or lower.

[Verily]

Re-Ealing Southall, given how ethnically split the vote appears to be, I wonder if there has been a good turnout among Black-British voters, who I'd have thought were overwhelmingly Labour. Turnout among them could decide whether Labour holds or doesn't

Isn't there a reliable white working-class Labour vote in the constituency?

Dave

In Ealing Southall, no. The white working-class vote there is one of the smallest in the country barring all-rich seats like Kensington and Chelsea. Most of the white vote is in the wealthy eastern end of the constituency where Labour's support barely registers.

[Verily]

According to Newsnight Labour will hold Sedgefield, while Ealing Southall looks close between Labour and the LibDems.

There are rumours that the BNP have come third in Sedgefield.

Really? I was up near there recently and it hardly seemed like a BNP friendly part of the world.. or maybe I saw only the good parts.. or maybe third here is something like 2%. *shrugs*

Given the complete lack of a Conservative campaign but a fairly lively Lib Dem one, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Tories down below 10% in Sedgefield. 8-9% is not a big ask for the BNP in a by-election in a safe, mostly white Labour seat where their candidate is a prominent local.

Rumors are flying around that the Tories did not do nearly so well in Ealing Southall as expected, and that they will come in a fairly distant third. Looks like a Labour hold with the Lib Dems in a close second in ES; Labour hold with the Lib Dems in a distant second in Sedgefield.

Ealing Southall
Labour: 35-40%
LD: 30-35%
Con: 17-20%
Rai (Ind): 6-8%
Respect: 3-5%
Green: 3-5%

Sedgefield
Labour: 45-50%
LD: 30-35%
BNP: 8-10%
Con: 8-10%

[Verily]

Some estimates from Sky: Wilson 43%, Stone 24%, Robb 13%. BNP and Ind (Gittins) have apparently saved their deposits.

Declaration expected very soon.

BNP expected to be at 10%, I think.

[Verily]

plus where will those Spectre (Reg Keys) votes go? Back to Labour or to the Lib Dems?

Seems to have been a mixture of "staying at home" and BNP...

Surely most of them did go to the LDs, who rose around 8% (or about 75% of Keys' vote). Many of them might have gone to the local Independent, too. I doubt very many went BNP.

[Verily]

Surely most of them did go to the LDs, who rose around 8% (or about 75% of Keys' vote). Many of them might have gone to the local Independent, too.

Stone only polled 637 more votes than the LibDem in 2005 did. Mind you, I suppose that some who voted LibDem in 2005 stayed at home.
Actually, a lot probably did vote for Gittins...

As you say, not everyone who voted Lib Dem last time bothered to vote, either. The difference in turnout between parties exists, but it's not so great to suggest that the drop in turnout was solely or even primarily due to Labour voters not showing up. The percentages are much more useful to look at, even in low-turnout by-elections.

[Verily]

Lab: 41.3%
LD: 27.7%
Con: 22.5%

So much for the amazing Tony Lit or the strength of the Cameron brand. Minor candidates did much worse than expected in ES, too; Rai was negligible, Respect at 1.6% and the Greens at 3.1%.

[Verily]

I think you're right Ben. To be the third party and not be 'squeezed' is not a bad result. The problem was Ealing was 'talked up', not by the party itself I may add, but by the blogs, particularly ConHome and this spilled onto PB.com too.

Of course, had the Tories not been talked up, they would have been squeezed. It's still a really bad result.