Labour Target Seats

These are the hundred and twenty five seats with the lowest percentage majorities over the Labour party. This does not necessarily mean they would be the most winnable seats for the Labour in practice, or that they are the seats the Labour party will actually be targetting at the next general election. The Labour party won 232 seats at the last general election, so would need to win another ninety-four seats to secure an overall majority in the House of Commons.

1. Derby North Majority 41 (0.1%)
2. Gower Majority 27 (0.1%)
3. Croydon Central Majority 165 (0.3%)
4. Vale of Clwyd Majority 237 (0.6%)
5. Bury North Majority 378 (0.8%)
6. Morley & Outwood Majority 422 (0.9%)
7. Plymouth Sutton & Devonport Majority 523 (1.1%)
8. Thurrock Majority 536 (1.1%)
9. Brighton, Kemptown Majority 690 (1.5%)
10. Bolton West Majority 801 (1.6%)
11. Telford Majority 730 (1.8%)
12. Weaver Vale Majority 806 (1.8%)
13. Bedford Majority 1097 (2.4%)
14. Plymouth Moor View Majority 1026 (2.4%)
15. Lincoln Majority 1443 (3%)
16. Cardiff North Majority 2137 (4.1%)
17. Peterborough Majority 1925 (4.1%)
18. Sheffield, Hallam Majority 2353 (4.2%)
19. Corby Majority 2412 (4.3%)
20. Waveney Majority 2408 (4.6%)
21. Warrington South Majority 2750 (4.6%)
22. Southampton, Itchen Majority 2316 (5.2%)
23. Keighley Majority 3053 (6.2%)
24. North Warwickshire Majority 2973 (6.3%)
25. Carlisle Majority 2774 (6.5%)
26. East Renfrewshire Majority 3718 (6.6%)
27. Leeds North West Majority 2907 (6.7%)
28. Halesowen & Rowley Regis Majority 3082 (7%)
29. Crewe & Nantwich Majority 3620 (7.3%)
30. Erewash Majority 3584 (7.4%)
31. Hendon Majority 3724 (7.5%)
32. Ipswich Majority 3733 (7.7%)
33. Broxtowe Majority 4287 (8%)
34. Stroud Majority 4866 (8%)
35. Calder Valley Majority 4427 (8.2%)
36. Northampton North Majority 3245 (8.3%)
37. Blackpool North & Cleveleys Majority 3340 (8.4%)
38. Pudsey Majority 4501 (8.8%)
39. Sherwood Majority 4647 (9.1%)
40. Amber Valley Majority 4205 (9.2%)
41. Colne Valley Majority 5378 (9.4%)
42. Hastings & Rye Majority 4796 (9.4%)
43. Bristol North West Majority 4944 (9.5%)
44. Edinburgh North & Leith Majority 5597 (9.6%)
45. Harrow East Majority 4757 (9.7%)
46. High Peak Majority 4894 (9.7%)
47. Stockton South Majority 5046 (9.8%)
48. Northampton South Majority 3793 (9.8%)
49. Norwich North Majority 4463 (10.2%)
50. Stevenage Majority 4955 (10.3%)
51. Enfield, Southgate Majority 4753 (10.4%)
52. Cannock Chase Majority 4923 (10.5%)
53. Morecambe & Lunesdale Majority 4590 (10.6%)
54. Nuneaton Majority 4882 (10.6%)
55. Dudley South Majority 4270 (11.2%)
56. Finchley & Golders Green Majority 5662 (11.2%)
57. South Ribble Majority 5945 (11.3%)
58. Worcester Majority 5646 (11.3%)
59. Rossendale & Darwen Majority 5654 (11.5%)
60. East Lothian Majority 6803 (11.5%)
61. South Swindon Majority 5785 (11.7%)
62. Southport Majority 1322 (3%)*
63. Preseli Pembrokeshire Majority 4969 (12.3%)
64. Paisley & Renfrewshire South Majority 5684 (12.3%)
65. Pendle Majority 5453 (12.3%)
66. Dover Majority 6294 (12.6%)
67. Reading East Majority 6520 (12.9%)
68. Warwick & Leamington Majority 6606 (13%)
69. Scarborough & Whitby Majority 6200 (13%)
70. Aberconwy Majority 3999 (13.3%)
71. Crawley Majority 6526 (13.4%)
72. Vale of Glamorgan Majority 6880 (13.4%)
73. Arfon Majority 3668 (13.6%)
74. Gloucester Majority 7251 (13.7%)
75. Great Yarmouth Majority 6154 (13.8%)
76. Reading West Majority 6650 (13.8%)
77. Carmarthen East & Dinefwr Majority 5599 (14.2%)
78. South Thanet Majority 2812 (5.7%)*
79. Brighton, Pavilion Majority 7967 (14.5%)
80. Chipping Barnet Majority 7656 (14.5%)
81. Stourbridge Majority 6694 (14.5%)
82. Elmet & Rothwell Majority 8490 (14.7%)
83. Milton Keynes South Majority 8672 (14.7%)
84. Aberdeen South Majority 7230 (14.8%)
85. Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire Majority 6054 (15%)
86. Camborne & Redruth Majority 7004 (15.2%)
87. Portsmouth South Majority 5241 (12.5%)*
88. Battersea Majority 7938 (15.6%)
89. Edinburgh South West Majority 8135 (15.8%)
90. Redditch Majority 7054 (16%)
91. Gravesham Majority 8370 (16.7%)
92. Dumfries & Galloway Majority 6514 (11.5%)*
93. Milton Keynes North Majority 9753 (16.9%)
94. Rutherglen & Hamilton West Majority 9975 (17.4%)
95. Cleethorpes Majority 7893 (17.5%)
96. Watford Majority 9794 (17.5%)
97. Loughborough Majority 9183 (17.6%)
98. Ochil & South Perthshire Majority 10168 (17.6%)
99. Clwyd West Majority 6730 (17.7%)
100. Shrewsbury & Atcham Majority 9565 (17.7%)
101. Paisley & Renfrewshire North Majority 9076 (18%)
102. South Basildon & East Thurrock Majority 7691 (16.9%)*
103. Lanark & Hamilton East Majority 10100 (18.3%)
104. Canterbury Majority 9798 (18.4%)
105. Dunfermline & West Fife Majority 10352 (18.6%)
106. Kingswood Majority 9006 (18.7%)
107. Stafford Majority 9177 (18.8%)
108. Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath Majority 9974 (18.8%)
109. Harlow Majority 8350 (18.9%)
110. Shipley Majority 9624 (19%)
111. Chingford & Woodford Green Majority 8386 (19.1%)
112. Edinburgh East Majority 9106 (19.3%)
113. Glasgow Central Majority 7662 (19.4%)
114. Airdrie & Shotts Majority 8779 (19.8%)
115. Carshalton & Wallington Majority 1510 (3.2%)*
116. Filton & Bradley Stoke Majority 9838 (20.1%)
117. Stirling Majority 10480 (20.1%)
118. Midlothian Majority 9859 (20.4%)
119. Basingstoke Majority 11063 (20.9%)
120. Linlithgow & Falkirk East Majority 12934 (21%)
121. Bexleyheath & Crayford Majority 9192 (21.1%)
122. Kensington Majority 7361 (21.2%)
123. Rugby Majority 10345 (21.2%)
124. Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock Majority 11265 (21.5%)
125. Rochford & Southend East Majority 9476 (21.7%)
Comments - 3,595 Responses on “Labour Target seats”
  1. It is possible that not all that money is being bet on the contest.

  2. FS…What do you mean?

    Burnham continues to be backed and is now clear favourite at BETFAIR:

    And he’s clear favourite at P POWER so should we be expecting a poll of some sort out giving Burnham the edge?

    I will be going to Corbyn’s meeting at Camden Town Hall this evening….I will report back.

  3. Heard some juicy gossip today from a friend of a friend who works in the Home Office, about the real reason for Chuka Umunna withdrawing from the Labour leadership contest. Suffice it to say that if the story is true, it is highly unlikely that Umunna will be a future candidate for the leadership even if Corbyn or Burnham crash and burn before 2020. It may well also preclude him from top jobs like shadow chancellor or shadow foreign second. Bet on Umunna at your peril.

  4. Shadow foreign secretary (bloody autocorrect)

  5. You do tease us, H. Hemmelig.

  6. You could take a good guess and not be a million miles off I’m sure. Suffice it to say that he made two very stupid mistakes which made his already difficult candidacy totally untenable – one was parading a blonde girlfriend in front of the cameras, the other sitting on a TV sofa next to Peter Mandelson. And with that I will shut up and say no more.

  7. I know what you mean H.Hemmelig. Have also been told rumours. Apparently its to do with religion and culture why he has lied when telling the truth would have no real effect in this day and age. I haven’t heard about any direct relationship other than professional with Mandelson through.

  8. I think Mr Nameless must be the last person around who hadnt heard the rumours

  9. Oh THOSE rumours. It’s not that I hadn’t heard, just that I didn’t consider it something worth standing down over.

  10. H. Hemmelig – Whatever the rumours are, for the press to doorstep his girlfriend’s 103 year old grandmother is disgraceful! Yes, I know he’s in the public eye and all that jazz but some common decency should be ahead to by journalists no matter how ‘juicy’ the story.

  11. Horse manure. So he wanted to keep his “girlfriend” and her family out of the public eye yet decided to wheel her out in front of the cameras to grub around for a few extra votes. I imagine if Chris Bryant suddenly walked hand in hand with a blonde bombshell in front of the TV cameras his 103 year old grandmother would get doorstepped as well.

  12. I agree. Politicians and celebrities can’t have it both ways, using the media for their own ends while trying to prevent the media causing them any discomfort.


    “Independent review shows abiding concern over economic deficit, and may fuel doubt about policies of Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn”

    “Polling undertaken for an independent review being led by Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP and former coordinator of the party’s 2015 manifesto, shows Britain’s voters do not back an anti-austerity message but instead believe the country must live within its means and make cutting the deficit its top priority.”

  14. 90 minutes debate on BBC R5 LIVE.

    No distinct winner and only a couple of spontaneous appluase from the audience in Stevenage.

    3 of the 4 callers after the event indicate Corbyn leaning.

    What stood out for me especially though was Corbyn’s answer to the question of immigration. Again he listed all the benefits of immigration historically and the fact that a lot of Brits emigrate. He said the way to deal with peoples fear and insecurities was to improve the economy and pay more and build houses.

    Many may feel this approach aint gonna win many UKIPERS back and will lose WC people and additionally & increasingly 1st, 2nd, even 3rd generation immigrants.

  15. If Corbyn is going to have free immigration he is going to have to abolish university tuition fees so that English (I mean English as the law is different in Scotland) students have fair access to higher education compared tio those in other developed countries. He is going to have to ensure that employers, not least Government Departments and other public bodies, provide adequate training instead of emplying immigrants as a short cut. This will entail, for instance and in particular, providing adequate opportunities for English people to have a career in medicine and allied professions including nursing. This will, for instance, involve building perhaps a dozen new teaching hospitals at a cost of around £1 billion each.

    Given that the UK already has the highest population density of just about any country in the world (ignoring micro-states such as Monaco and Vatican City) Corbyn will have to ensure that his house building programme does not interefere with the preservation of Green Belts and other rural land so that city dwellers have adequate space for leisure activities. This matter is made worse because of the excessive concentration of the UK population into London and the South-East, and a small numbr of regional cities.

    Corbyn’s housing policy will have to be accompanied by the development of infrastructure including roads and rail systems. Building a fairly rudimentary tram system for a medium-sized city like Leicester would cost of the order of £1 billion. For Bristol and Leeds, both of which are in desperate need of either tramways or an underground or both, it would cost much more..

    All these things would be good, like apple pie. But they are an unaffordable programme, particualarly given that international financial interests are unlikely to be favourable to Corbyn. And don’t forget that Corbyn would want to hand out money for international development on a large scale too.

    I haven’t even begun to mention sorting out our schools.

    Matters become worse when we try to translate these aims into plans for specific seats. Will the voters find promises of tramway systems for Plymouth, Southampton and Birghton credible? What about the teaching hospitals for Bolton, Derby, Peterborough and Thurrock?

    Corbyn’s programme would make Labour’s 1945 plans look modest.. Don’t forget that in 1945 economic resources were poured into Europe to rebuild after the Second World War. Even though the Americans treated th eunited Kingdom badly to ensure that we did not rebuild the Commonwealth as a world power, we got some of the action. Corbyn’s plans would require an economic revolution and its rapid implementation, which would have to be achieved without international help.

    Even if by some miracle Corbyn could deiiver this programme, he wouldn’t get the chance because the Conservative and even UKIP programmes would appear more realistic, and less upsetting.

  16. Somebody on another thread has pointed out that have been using incorreect figures for national population density and that certain countires, e.g. Japan, The Netherlands and Israel, have higher densities than ours, when arguing about the undesirability of the UK taking in any more immigrants. Mea culpa.

    If immigrants were prepared to settle in the Falkland Islands (particuarly West Falkland), Sutherland in Northern Scotland (e.g. on the Ministry of Defence land between Durness and Cape Wrath) or on one of the outer Shetland Islands, such as Fetllar, and if the necessary infrastructure, notably water supply, were developed with international money, I hope we would be glad to take them. But I doubt if the immigrants themselves would accept that.

    Looking at population, densities, these are low across Northern Africa. They are also quite low (around one third of ours) across the front-line Southern European states e.g. Turkey, Greece, Romania, Spain. We should be sticking to the policy of making asylum-seekers stay in the first European country they reach, but give those countries massive aid to assimilate the newcomers without detriment to their existing populations.

    Northern European countries offereing to take a few hundred, or even a couple of thousand, refugees are not understanding the scale of the problem. Nor are people who expect Southern England to take anybody who wishes to come.

    Looking at the world population figures, I now see that by far the worst problem is in Bangladesh, which has a very high population density and is threatened by being submerged as a result of global warming. We really ought to be doing more to get a grip with assistance for Bangladesh’s urgent problems.

  17. England is the fourth most densely population country in the world that has more than 10 million people. The other three are Bangladesh, Taiwan and South Korea.

  18. I wouldn’t think of any of Bangladesh, Taiwan and South Korea as desirable or likely destinations for North African refugees.

  19. CORBYN now at new low:

    1.34 at BETFAIR…………..67% likliehood
    1/5 at LADBROKES…….84% ” “

  20. LABOUR LEADER PREDICTION: 13 hours to polls closing.

    Let’s consider some of the evidence.

    *300,000 people have signed up to vote as fully paid-up Labour members.

    That’s 105,000 more than there were in May15.

    *120,000 people have applied to pay a one-off £3 fee to vote.

    *190,000 TU affiliated members

    TOTAL 610,000. But this has been reduced to very approx 550,000. How many have not been sent ballot papers is unknown.

    YouGov polls:

    6-10 August extends lead

    Now this one in Aug was of 1411 voters based on the then existing electorate of 390,000. yougov did not have data to take account of new, enlarged electorate of 610,000 (now whittled down to approx 550,000) people.

    We know from the Labour Party that 200,000 were added in the final week, around half last-minute union sign-ups and the other half divided between new £3 members and new full proper members.

    It also important to note the jump from July to Aug in JC’s FPV%. In 2 weeks he jumps 10%. What about more momentum since early August? I think so, a lot actually. How many of the last minute, (post yougov Aug poll) 200,000 will be Corbyns? A big majority imo.

    It’s likely IMO that if yougov did a poll now amongst the selectorate, that JC figure of 53% would increase.


  21. Turnout 76%.. lower than I expected.

    All bookies, even BETFAIR have closed leader winner markets

  22. Could Brighton Pavilion be vulnerable to a Corbynite Labour? Or will Caroline Lucas jump ship?

  23. MrNameless I doubt either. Lucas has made her brand in the Green Party and that is where her heart lies so I’d be shocked if she went over to Labour (she will eek cooperation I am sure). Also the people who love Corbyn in pavilion will likely also love Lucas (who would certainly side with Labour in a minority government) and so will vote for her over any low profile Labour candidate.

  24. Of course if Lucas were to retire yes it probably would be vulnerable (though I think the Greens would hold it especially after their disastrous spell at running Brighton council is over).

  25. Well, today the polling industry presents an independent post mortem on their previous election polling figures.

    They are to say that the CON figure was understated – but a few of us were saying this for weeks before the election date – see especially 20 April and 27 April upthread.

    KIERAN W for example: “…the error will be entirely in the direction of understating the status quo and/or centre right option, as has so often been the case (in previous elections)…” 27 April

    And a week before the election NICK ROBINSON said on BBC NEWS that “….we might well yet see a good old fashioned majority government”.

    Four things occur to me amongst others:

    It is much more likely that the undecided or unsure will stick with the status quo and vote for the government. And the more harsh or right wing the Tories are, the more the “shy Tories” factor will be. I am, here, mainly thinking about the Tories hard policies on benefits. I suspected that the CON figure was still being understated. And the closer LAB seem to be to winning the more voters will switch their votes on election date.

    The undecided figures weren’t treated seriously enough or properly by the pollsters.

    Call centre market research telephonists are poorly paid and treated. Is it possible that a small but significant amount of respondents cannot find it in them to admit to the person on the other end of the phone that they’ll vote for a right wing party, who they suspect the telephonist is against?

    Do pollsters actually ask the respondents if they are registered to vote in Parliamentary elections?

  26. Ultimately I think people were simply guilty of putting too much faith in polls. Polling has always had a margin of error and some of the methods used this time, I’m especially thinking of the Ashcroft marginal polls, were really quite experimental in their methods. I did make this point about Ashcroft polls, especially as they related to LD seats at the time, and was proved right. It was only a relatively small error (3% each way on the CON and LAB shares) that the polls were wrong by and people should, I know it is easy to say with hindsight, have recognised that this was a possibility. Next time I’m sure there will be more caution (though the way things are going there is a strong chance the result won’t be in doubt in 2020). In the meantime pollsters will try and fix the problems but this will mean we should be even more cautious next time as there isn’t really a reliable way of seeing if the fixes have worked until 10pm on 7 May 2020.

  27. I tend to agree with Jack.

    The Quota methods used by Pollsters come perilously close to decidin g on the answers and then trying to find the people who will give them. A truly random sample would better but I am given to believe that it would take too long afterwards to adjust for non-respondents etc.

    If we get the polls right in retrospect for 2015, who is to say that they will be right in 2020, when there may be a different set of problems.

    One issue in 2020 is that the swing to/from Labour is likely to be far from uniform as Corbyn’s party is completely different from MIliband’s and appeals in selected areas.

    Call centres not far from take people off the streets to be interviewers. They differ widely in their backgrounds and views and I have no reason to suspect that they are particularly left-wing. Not a few of them are WWC housewives who stereotypically might be otherwise.

  28. Yes JS – there were a few but not many who mistrusted the accuracy of ASHCROFT. But what exactly do you mean: the ‘experimental’ methods?

    Looking ahead, Labour people might be very worried that the current LAB figure in polls are still being understated.

  29. And some might see this as a further opportunity to undermine CORBYN.

    Maybe unrelated to a move on CORBYN but BEN BRADSHAW has urged the polling companies to take 3% off their LAB figure and slap 3% on CON! This would if done, put LAB in low to mid 20s…approx 23-28% in most polls.

  30. @Deepthroat

    The constituency polls used a two-stage question. The first was a normal VI question, the second asked respondents to think ‘specifically about your own constituency and the candidates who are likely to stand there’. The second answer was the published figures. This was a worthy attempt to tease out constituency effects but of unproven accuracy and far too much faith was put in it. I am of the opinion that this in most cases over-prompted for local candidates when in reality this is usually a secondary consideration. The result was that LD incumbents in particular were overstated by Ashcroft (it was these seats where the divergence was unsurprisingly at its greatest). In many cases the eventual results were much closer to the main VI question than the constituency question.

    I should stress that polls are very useful, and were very useful during the campaign despite the error. The Oldham by-election shows how bad reporting of a campaign with no polling at all can be. I wouldn’t for one minute join the ranks of those saying ignore polls or even ban them. Just that their findings must be interpreted with great caution, even if repeated by different pollsters across a long period.

  31. Deepthroat where have you seen in a poll Labour at 26% where 3% taken off could reduce them to 23%

  32. MW -Apologies, t’was a Typo: should have been written as 26-28%. But it was a bit of a guess without checking properly.

  33. Also, I think that most of the polling companies have made some methodological changes since the election, so adding 3% to the Tories and reducing Labour’s score by that amount may no longer be right.

  34. @ deepthroat The evidence suggests that the shy Tory thing was not a significant issue. The problem is much more that the samples the pollsters get are inaccurate – when a truly random sample, with a lot of following up, is used, then the results are relatively close to the actual election results.

  35. ‘Shy Tories’ was never really a very sensible theory this time, was it, given that most of the polling was online… I suppose people may have been shy to themselves, saying they’re undecided when in fact they were always 95% likely to vote Tory, but that’s a different thing and pollsters have adopted methods to try and counter it.

  36. The online polls showed more pronounced LAB leads. So this, on the face of it undermines the theory that respondents find it difficult to disclose they’re voting CON. But it might be argued that the online polls samples were even more unrepresentative than the phone polls.

    At the end of the day, our constituency based system means that any canvassing of the population nationally makes it difficult when we have close elections.

    One danger, especially if LAB are again a ‘moderate’ party, come 2020, is that the pollsters may over-compensate the CON figures & LAB might do better than expected.

    To be fair to the pollsters they got the LD, UKIP and SNP figures fairly accurately.

  37. Any one who has been a teller at polling stations will know that different types of people vote at different times. For example commuters first thing or at early evening, pensioners predominate during the morning and school parents in the afternoon. The same is true for calling or phoning people at home, different people are out or available depending upon their lifestyles.
    If the pollsters had asked the simple question “Would I have been at home to answer the phone at the times I called?” they would have got their explanation. They are missing the people who work late, go to the gym in the evening, are busy putting children to bed or who are feed up with cold calls selling PPI.

    They can fiddle with the data as much as you wish, but if a significant proportion of the population won’t or can’t take part in polls the results will be suspect.

  38. I do think phone polling’s days are numbered… not that it was any more or less accurate than online polling – in fact it produced the few polls during the campaign that did have 5-6 pt Tory leads – but the already small response rates are likely to get smaller, making it less and less viable. Lots of people don’t have landlines now and most people won’t answer from an unrecognised number on their mobile (I am guilty of this – I stopped answering when Unicef rang me about fifteen times trying to get me to donate again after I made a text donation). So the focus should probably be on how to improve the representativeness of online samples, something that won’t be at all easy though I’m sure Anthony and colleagues are working on it already.

  39. JACK SHELDON says online polls showed regular CON leads. I thought it was the other way around and showed LAB leads. If he is correct then my theory may be right – that a small but significant amount of peopke who intend to vote cannot bring themselves to admit it to the call centre telephonist at the other end of the phone.

    J SHELDON says online polls showed regular CON leads. I thought it was the other way around and showed LAB leads. If he is correct then my theory may be right – that a small but significant amount of people who intend to vote CON cannot bring themselves to admit it to the call centre telephonist at the other end of the phone

  41. Sorry, my post was less clear than I thought. The online and phone polls produced very similar figures most of the time, but it was the phone polls that occasionally (though in none of the final polls) showed larger CON leads.

    I doubt there is much of a ‘shy’ effect relating to the call centre telephonist. There may have been in the days when face-to-face polling was common but I doubt it extends to a faceless operator and certainly not to an online interface.

  42. If people were embarrassed to say they vote Tory, would that effect not be larger in certain parts of the country? For example, in Scotland (where the polls were pretty solid) Toryism is clearly more of an issue than in many parts of England. I can’t imagine there’s much of a social stigma from admitting you vote Conservative in most rural areas in the South or South West, for example.

  43. Online polls are disproportionally based on people like us who being more political than normal are less likely to be swing voters. They therefore find it harder to pick up changes in the behaviour of swing voters, no matter how hard they try to solve this with weightings.

  44. Pollsters are going to have to go down the road of doing fewer, better quality polls where repeated attempts are made to contact those who are difficult to contact. The latter are the disproportionately Tory leaning people who the traditional methods are now failing to sample adequately.

  45. I think people who work in technology companies in London and other big cities simply don’t realise or acknowledge that there are still a significant number of people outside those areas that either don’t use the internet or have a very slow connection.

  46. Three council by elections tonight two have declared Hounslow and Bolton. Ukip share is down by 10 in both. While UKIP don’t have the best record in council by elections it tends to be those they are defending they perform poorly in but have strong showings where they don’t hold the seat. Might be insignificant. Council elections mean little vto national picture.

  47. @Matt

    And in the third too (Coventry). Like most trends from council by-elections it is probably nothing, or nothing more than UKIP not campaigning, but interesting nonetheless.

  48. Others don’t campaign either.. and their shares are up. LibDems made an effort in Cranford. Can’t imagine the Greens stirred much.

    its a big UKIP unwind. One really needs to ask what they bring to local government with an agenda that is essentially national issues like the EU and immigration. They are following in the footsteps of the Tea Party movement in the US. It never gained traction below State government level and now is scarcely being mentioned in the Republican primary races.

  49. There is no national polling evidence of a UKIP unwind… if anything they are a point or two up on their GE share. It may be that you are right that people are seeing that they are not well suited to local government. But lets see what happens when the referendum gets into full swing…

  50. “There is no national polling evidence of a UKIP unwind… if anything they are a point or two up on their GE share” – the national polls could be wrong of course.

    Or it could simply be by-elections throwing up some more weird results.

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)