![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Party | 2010 | 2013 |
---|---|---|
LD | 24966 | 13342 |
UKIP | 1933 | 11571 |
Con | 21102 | 10559 |
Lab | 5153 | 4088 |
Turnout | 53650 | 41616 |
Turnout fell by 22%. Labour’s vote fell by 20%, i.e. held up compared to turnout but didn't actually go anywhere. Failing to pick up anti-incumbent protest votes is a bit of a problem for the opposition party.
The CON+UKIP vote fell by only 3%, but went from a 92-8 split to a 48-52 split. (It’s only a guess that it's the same people both times round but I think it’s a fairly plausible one.)
Nigel Farage is plainly onto something with “If the Conservatives hadn't split our vote we would have won” although I cannot help but be reminded of the (probably apocryphal) Enver Hoxha quote: “Never forget that, with China, Albania has a quarter of the world’s population.”
The LD vote fell by nearly 50%. Given the fall in turnout, “half of previous LD voters stayed home” isn’t an implausible interpretation.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-01 06:28 pm (UTC)Polling suggests Labour already has about 50% of 2010 Lib Dem voters, so that's essentially all the ones who would have second preferenced Labour in 2010. In that sense Eastleigh is great news for Labour, albeit bad press for one news cycle - it suggests those voters are being acquired where they are needed, rather than in seats where Labour is a hopeless third (or, now, fourth).
As to the substantive, Ashcroft's polling suggests UKIP attracted a lot of 2010 Lib Dem voters - indeed more by number than it did 2010 Tory voters (though a smaller proportion).
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-01 09:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-01 11:00 pm (UTC)