UK local by-elections, 2024

[YL]

Thursday 11 January

Andrew Teale's preview

Salford; Quays

Lib Dem 540 (54.8%, +17.4 on 2023, -5.7 on 2022)
Lab 321 (-12.6 on 2023, +1.4 on 2022)
Green 124 (12.6%, +3.4 on 2023, +4.2 on 2022)

Lib Dem hold

Brighton & Hove; South Portslade

Lab 874 (54.6%, -6.0)
Con 246 (15.4%, +2.9)
Lib Dem 186 (11.6%, +3.0)
Green 149 (9.3%, -2.0)
TUSC 53 (3.3%, new)
Democratic Liberation 49 (3.1%, new)
Ind Gillespie 44 (2.7%, new)

Lab hold

Dorset; Littlemoor & Preston

Con 1237 (53.7%, +26.9)
Lib Dem 833 (36.2%, +20.5)
Lab 232 (10.1%, -7.6)
(changes from 2019 (sic) "top vote")

Con hold
except that the winning candidate is ineligible, so the seat will be left vacant until May

Tendring; Bluehouse

Ind Goldman 181 (30.4%, +13.6)
Con 91 (15.3%, -2.9)
Lab 83 (13.9%, -4.4)
Reform UK 54 (9.1%, new)
Ind Mayzes 52 (8.7%, -2.4)
Ind Bayford 45 (7.6%, new)
UKIP 38 (6.4%, -2.0)
Ind Holland 24 (4.0%, -4.7)
Lib Dem 22 (3.7%, -0.2)
Ind Chittock 6 (1.0%, new)
(changes from 2023 "top vote")

Ind Goldman gain from Lab; ward now 1 Con, 1 Ind

[Torrain]

Huh. Reform actually winning a vote share in line with their national polling - that’s novel.

[JimJamUK]

Huh. Reform actually winning a vote share in line with their national polling - that’s novel.

It only took one of the most UKIPy wards in the country to achieve 😁

[CumbrianLefty]

What a very strange affair in Dorset all round.

[YL]

What a very strange affair in Dorset all round.

Yes. It is reminiscent of a case in Sheffield (Walkley ward) in 1992 when Diane Leek (Lib Dem) won a by-election but it then turned out that she was employed indirectly by the council as a school dinner lady, and that this meant she was ineligible. (This is a long time ago, and I was quite young at the time, but I think there was some reason why it wasn't obvious that this counted as ineligibility; note that dinner lady and lollipop man, as in the Dorset case, are quite similar sorts of job.) So there was a second by-election, she resigned from her dinner lady position and, now eligible, stood again, and got a lot more votes than she had first time round. I think that to a lot of the electorate it seems like a ridiculous technicality that that sort of job makes you ineligible to be a councillor, and so (a) there may be a sympathy vote (b) parties who make a fuss about it may be punished for making the fuss.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's also the case of the Winchester by-election in 1997: Mark Oaten* (LibDem) was declared the winner over the incumbent Gerry Malone (Con) by two votes. The count was poorly conducted, and an Election Court unseated Oaten after an election petition was launched by Malone, as it was held that the outcome of the election was uncertain. Oaten won the ensuing by-election by over twenty thousand votes.

_{*Who, despite this, is better known for the ending of his parliamentary career rather than its beginning...}

[YL]

There's also the case of the Winchester by-election in 1997: Mark Oaten* (LibDem) was declared the winner over the incumbent Gerry Malone (Con) by two votes. The count was poorly conducted, and an Election Court unseated Oaten after an election petition was launched by Malone, as it was held that the outcome of the election was uncertain. Oaten won the ensuing by-election by over twenty thousand votes.

_{*Who, despite this, is better known for the ending of his parliamentary career rather than its beginning...}

One interesting thing about that is that as I understand it the evidence suggests that if it hadn't been for incompetence in the running of the election Malone would have won, and yet he still got the "bad loser" treatment. However, it is also the case that the notorious Richard Huggett was on the ballot paper as a fake Lib Dem, and there can be little doubt that most of his votes were intended for the official Lib Dem candidate, so if it hadn't been for him Oaten would have been the clear winner by a few hundred. I think that was part of the reason for the reaction.

However, I think the Lib Dems were right not to launch a challenge in North East Fife in 2017 when the SNP beat them by the same official margin, 2 votes. And I think it would be a bad idea for them to launch a challenge to this result and claim, as per Bristol South East 1961, that the Tory voters knew their candidate was ineligible and so effectively threw away their votes, meaning that the Lib Dem runner up should be declared the winner.

(And of course Bristol South East 1961 is another example showing that voters will happily vote for an ineligible candiate. I presume the reason for that ineligibility was widely considered ridiculous at the time, at least by Labour voters.)

[YL]

Thursday 18 January

Andrew Teale's preview

Sheffield; Stannington

(I live in one of the neighbouring wards, so I wrote my own profile for this one.)

Lib Dem 2258 (52.7%, +0.6 on 2023, +15.9 on 2022, +21.0 on 2021)
Lab 1212 (28.3%, +4.4 on 2023, -0.3 on 2022, -0.7 on 2021)
Con 372 (8.7%, -4.5 on 2023, -5.5 on 2022, -16.1 on 2021)
Green 328 (7.6%, -1.7 on 2023, -7.0 on 2022, -4.2 on 2021)
Liberal 118 (2.8%, new)

Lib Dem hold

Richmond upon Thames; Hampton North

Lib Dem 1177 (53.2%, +19.9%)
Con 779 (35.2%, +11.5)
Lab 151 (6.8%, -1.5)
Green 106 (4.8%, -16.2)
(changes from 2022 "top vote", though it's misleading here as the Lib Dems and Greens had a pact)

Lib Dem gain from Con; ward now 3 Lib Dem

Richmond upon Thames; Teddington

Lib Dem 1716 (64.3%, -2.6)
Con 561 (21.0%, -0.7)
Green 184 (6.9%, new)
Lab 163 (6.1%, -5.4)
Ind Stockford 46 (1.7%, new)
(changes from 2022 "top vote")

Lib Dem hold

Wandsworth; Tooting Broadway

Lab 1888 (67.3%, +6.7 on 2022, +5.1 on Jul 2022 by-election)
Con 542 (19.3%, +0.8 on 2022, -2.1 on Jul 2022 by-election)
Green 261 (9.3%, -5.6 on 2022, -3.1 on Jul 2022 by-election)
Lib Dem 113 (4.0%, -2.0 on 2022, -0.1 on Jul 2022 by-election)

Lab hold

Hackney; Cazenove

Con 1623 (53.8%, +47.5)
Lab 935 (31.0%, -12.2)
Green 387 (12.8%, +1.2)
Lib Dem 73 (2.4%, -34.5)
(changes from 2022 "top vote"; NB the Con candidate this time was one of the Lib Dems then)

Con gain from Lab; ward now 2 Lab, 1 Con

Warwick; Warwick All Saints & Woodloes

Lab 961 (52.5%, +8.4)
Con 687 (37.5%, +3.2)
Lib Dem 183 (10.0%, +1.1)
(changes from 2023 "top vote")

Lab hold

[YL]

Cazenove needs some explanation. I think the main point is that the Conservative candidate is a former Lib Dem councillor who obviously had a lot of personal support, especially in the Haredi Jewish community, which is large in this area. (Though the ward is only 24% Jewish, so either he got a fair amount of non-Jewish support as well or there was significant differential turnout.)  The other thing is Labour's candidate problems: their candidate was briefly suspended from the party over "gender critical" social media activity and the campaign stopped; it restarted before election day but this may help to explain why Labour did so badly.

The Hampton North result means that Richmond upon Thames council is now a Tory free zone.

The one on my doorstep wasn't that interesting, but it's a pretty good result for the Lib Dems who improved on an already good result in 2023. Labour did OK compared with last year but their share is only back to about where it was in 2021 and 2022, while the Tories were close to turning the ward into a three way marginal in 2021 (and, while of course we don't have exact figures, may well have been close to carrying this ward in the 2019 General Election) but now slumped into a single figure percentage.

[TheTide]

Looking through the reactions, there is spin from at least half a dozen different angles on Cazenove. Possibly a record for a local by-election.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

The Hampton North result means that Richmond upon Thames council is now a Tory free zone.

Replacing a councillor first elected in 1957 which is an astonishingly long public service.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Though not with continuous service, and for more than one party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is actually the third party that Sharer will represent on Hackney council: when he was first elected (thirty years ago) it was for Labour. Adding to the complexities of this particular ward, incidentally, is the fact that many of the Hasidim who live there are Satmar.

[Wiswylfen]

Labour needs to immediately stop trying to appeal to these Stalinist-loving freaks or we will lose the next election on a 30-point swing to the Conservatives jao.

[YL]

Aaargh someone on Twitter referred to Stannington as “Red Wall”.

[afleitch]

Looking through the reactions, there is spin from at least half a dozen different angles on Cazenove. Possibly a record for a local by-election.

Labour created bad PR for themselves. They could have just kept their candidate suspended and washed hands off the result.

[Wiswylfen]

Looking through the reactions, there is spin from at least half a dozen different angles on Cazenove. Possibly a record for a local by-election.

Labour created bad PR for themselves. They could have just kept their candidate suspended and washed hands off the result.

I can't decide whether the person who lifted the suspension was an idiot or a genius. Now, we have to carry the can when as you say we could have washed our hands of the inevitable defeat; but also the people who talk about the oppressed sex class can't blame it on the suspension without looking ridiculous.

[CumbrianLefty]

Looking ridiculous has never stopped them up to now, mind.

[JimJamUK]

Cazenove needs some explanation. I think the main point is that the Conservative candidate is a former Lib Dem councillor who obviously had a lot of personal support, especially in the Haredi Jewish community, which is large in this area. (Though the ward is only 24% Jewish, so either he got a fair amount of non-Jewish support as well or there was significant differential turnout.)  The other thing is Labour's candidate problems: their candidate was briefly suspended from the party over "gender critical" social media activity and the campaign stopped; it restarted before election day but this may help to explain why Labour did so badly.

Given the very high turnout for a by-election (especially given the cold weather and defending party suspending their candidate), I think we assume so.

[YL]

Just one this week, and nothing next week.

Thursday 25 January

Andrew Teale's preview

Stirling; Dunblane & Bridge of Allan

First preferences
Con 1644 (38.3%, -2.6 on March 2023, +8.2 on 2022)
SNP 1000 (23.3%, -3.6 on March 2023, -2.5 on 2022)
Lab 869 (20.3%, +6.8% on March 2023, +8.4 on 2022)
Green 433 (10.1%, +1.4 on March 2023, -5.9 on 2022)
Lib Dem 292 (6.8%, -2.1 on March 2023, -2.6 on 2022)
Scottish Family Party 50 (1.2%, no change on March 2023, +0.5 on 2022)

Ballot Box Scotland's transfer plot:


Con hold

[CumbrianLefty]

There are actually two Aldermanic elections for the City of London next week, but both unopposed.

[YL]

An interesting one as in some ways the party who did best was Labour, who still came third. But I wonder what would have happened had they just got a few more transfers from the Lib Dems and Greens and been ahead of the SNP on count 4.

Amusingly the Scottish Family Party also got 50 votes in the 2022 regular election and the March 2023 by-election.

[CumbrianLefty]

As asked elsewhere, how many of those 50 voters were the same people each time.

[Torrain]

Per Ballot Box Scotland, the Family Party voters had pretty different second preferences compared to the last by-election:

Con: 34% / 18%
SNP: 6% / 12%
Lab: 18% / 10%
Grn: 2% / 18%
LD: 10% / 8%
None: 30% / 34%

So fair chance they're a different bunch.

[YL]

Ballot Box Scotland's chart of second preferences for each first preference in Dunblane & Bridge of Allan:



Labour were the Tories' most common second preference, but not the reverse this time: that was the Lib Dems and the Tories only just ahead of the Greens. Quite a lot of Tory votes were non-transferable, which I don't find very surprising, but maybe people are less likely to transfer when they expect their first preference to win. Note also the respectable rates from both the SNP and Greens to Labour, and also from the Greens to the Lib Dems. The Family sample is of course small; that's only 9 voters going 1 Family, 2 Green.