Basingstoke
2010 Results:
Conservative: 25590 (50.52%)
Labour: 10327 (20.39%)
Liberal Democrat: 12414 (24.51%)
UKIP: 2076 (4.1%)
Others: 247 (0.49%)
Majority: 13176 (26.01%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 16549 (38.3%)
Labour: 14598 (33.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 9380 (21.7%)
Other: 2655 (6.1%)
Majority: 1951 (4.5%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 19955 (41.5%)
Labour: 15275 (31.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 9952 (20.7%)
BNP: 821 (1.7%)
Green: 928 (1.9%)
UKIP: 1044 (2.2%)
Other: 148 (0.3%)
Majority: 4680 (9.7%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 20490 (42.7%)
Labour: 19610 (40.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 6693 (13.9%)
UKIP: 1202 (2.5%)
Majority: 880 (1.8%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 24751 (43.3%)
Labour: 22354 (39.1%)
Liberal Democrat: 9714 (17%)
Other: 310 (0.5%)
Majority: 2397 (4.2%)
Boundary changes: Major. Loses Calleva, Pamber, Upton Grey & The Candovers and part of Sherborne St John to Hampshire North East, while gaining part of Hatch Warren & Beggarwood, a tiny part of Popley West and most of the small ward of Rooksdown from Hampshire North West.
Profile: Basingstoke was once a small market town, but has rapidly expanded since the 1960s, first seeing the development of council housing for the London overspill, and more recently becoming a site of major private development to cater for commuters into south-west London. It has also become a prosperous economic centre in its own right, with high tech and service industries.
The growth of the town has seen its boundaries drawn ever tighter around Basingstoke itself. On the old boundaries it included the rural hinterland to the north and south of the town, the new boundaries reduce the seat to just Basingstoke itself and a few villages close to the east of the town, including Old Basing and Newnham.
The seat has returned a Conservative MP since the 1920s, though in the 2001-2005 Parliament was briefly in the unusual position of being a mainland British seat represented by a Northern Irish political party when the then MP Andrew Hunter joined the DUP, having intended to relocate to Northern Ireland.
Current MP: Maria Miller(Conservative) born 1964, Wolverhampton. Educated at Brynteg Comprehensive school, Bridgend, and the LSE. Former marketing consultant and director of an advertising company. Contested Wolverhampton North East 2001. First elected as MP for Basingstoke 2005. Shadow minister for education 2005-2006, for family welfare 2006-2007, for children since 2007 (more information at They work for you)
Maria Miller(Conservative) born 1964, Wolverhampton. Educated at Brynteg Comprehensive school, Bridgend, and the LSE. Former marketing consultant and director of an advertising company. Contested Wolverhampton North East 2001. First elected as MP for Basingstoke 2005. Shadow minister for education 2005-2006, for family welfare 2006-2007, for children since 2007 (more information at They work for you)
Funda Pepperell (Labour) Educated at Southampton Solent University. Former international sprinter. Journalist
John Shaw (Liberal Democrat) Basingstoke and Deane councillor. Contested Southampton Test 2001.
Stella Howell (UKIP) Steve Saul (Basingstoke Common Man)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 94433
Male: 49.5%
Female: 50.5%
Under 18: 24.2%
Over 60: 15.5%
Born outside UK: 7.1%
White: 95.6%
Black: 0.8%
Asian: 1.6%
Mixed: 1.2%
Other: 0.7%
Christian: 71.8%
Hindu: 0.6%
Muslim: 0.6%
Full time students: 2%
Graduates 16-74: 18.9%
No Qualifications 16-74: 23.1%
Owner-Occupied: 71.7%
Social Housing: 20.7% (Council: 0.8%, Housing Ass.: 19.9%)
Privately Rented: 5.2%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 3.1%
The cropping of rural hinterland, makes this more urban Basingstoke better for Labour, and Labour would have won in 1997 and 2001 on the new boundaries – but not 2005.
1997 and 2001 were the high watermark for Labour, and this seat will be an unlikely Labour prospect again, even in the distant future.
I agree. The Tories actually performed poorly here in 2005, but Labour lost share of vote compared to their two landslides and seem to have missed their chance. The Conservatives should now consolidate their position and turn in a healthy 5,000 to 7,000 majority, maybe even larger, but one day, with the political tide changing back again, Labour could have their firs MP here.
It stands to reason that this seat will swing to the Tories in the sense that it seems likely most seats will- assuming as we all seem to be Labour are taking a hammering next time, but I think the swing will be less than the national average. It will be Tory as long as the Tories are in vogue, but when the wheel comes full circle and Labour are on the ascendant again, I think this seat will be theirs.
The Conservatives finally got control of the council back in a by-election in late 2006.
It was lost in 1994 during the deeply unpopular final period of the government. The Tories hadn’t made much progress getting it back and it’s taken over 12 years. For a time it was in a Lab/Lib Dem co-alition.
Labour may have a chance here again at their next high water mark, but given that 52 years passed between 1945 and 1997, we could be talking about 2049.
Only thing which could help Labour in such a period is further boundary changes strip away more hinterland, and even result in two divisions.
Two divisions may actually be ok for the Conservatives as they would undoubtably include much rural territary that has been slowly lost from this seat over the years!
Sandwich’s we can deal with, it is doughnut’s that conspire against us!
Labour hasn’t won Basingstoke yet, but it did enjoy representation by the DUP from 2003 to 2005.
I suppose one day there will be a City of Basingstoke and a Basingstoke Outer.
Perhaps by that time, Labour will be able to take the City of Basingstoke, and the DUP will have had time to work the outer circle wards.
A few years ago the DUP was seriously thinking of putting up candidates for local election in parts of Liverpool. They thought better of it.
Ironically, at the turn of the century, the main opposition group on Liverpool Corporation were the Irish Nationalists.
If Basingstoke continues to grow, I imagine it will be stripped to a donut seat in the next review, and probably be a good Labour target.
I actually think Labour did pretty well in 2005 to keep the Tory majority down to just 4,680 even on the old boundaries.
I agree with most people that the Tories should continue to win here, but you never know – maybe the Labour strength in the urban area of Basingstoke is higher than estimated (which would of course mean that the Labour vote in the outlying areas is even less than thought).
The Tories have had 3 bad results in a row here: in 1997, there was a huge swing against them, in 2001, their majority was cut to just 880, and then in 2005, the Tory vote fell by 1.2%, we musn’t forget, probably due to a new candidate.
I understand Andrew Hunter expected to lose during the 2001 campaign, but he was probably helped by the national slump in turnout to 59%. I’d expect Maria Millar to be reasonably safe, baring some dramatic defeat of a future Tory government whenever that is.
I’m interested by that last comment. How did you find out that Andrew Hunter thought he was going to lose in 2001?
I read it soon after the 2001 election from a reputable source, a former colleague who follows these matters and writes on them – usually in more detail.
“Joe Dollin Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
A few years ago the DUP was seriously thinking of putting up candidates for local election in parts of Liverpool. They thought better of it.
Ironically, at the turn of the century, the main opposition group on Liverpool Corporation were the Irish Nationalists.
If Basingstoke continues to grow, I imagine it will be stripped to a donut seat in the next review, and probably be a good Labour target.”
SF seriously considered fielding a candidate in the 1988 Glasgow Govan by election, the seat included the rival Ibrox Football Stadium, in protest at the governments broadcasting ban.
SF also had a seat in Liverpool (Liverpool Scotland I think) a long time ago.
Peter, you’re thinking of TP O’Connor, Parnellite Mp for Liverpool, Scotland 1885-1929. He was a member of the Irish Home Rule Party.
The Home rulers were moderate nationalists who sent about 85 MPs to Westminster before 1918 in most elections 1885-1918. They took almost every seat in ireland outside the six counties, and of course TP O’Connor at Liverpool, scotland.
In 1918 they were onliterated by Sinn Fein winning 73 seats. The Home Rulers only returned 7- one of whom was O’Connor who continued to sit as an Irish Nationalist till his death in 1929. He had never faced an opposition candidate and on his death the Labour candidate was also unopposed- and faced no opponent till 1950.
The Irish nationalist contingent on Liverpool Corporation was replaced By the Labour party during the twentites, but sectarian voting was so strong that the Conservative/unionists never lost control till 1960.
The fact that most branch Labour parties in liverpool were effectively controlled by small groups of Irish catholics with very little socialist ideology made it easy for Militant to target them for ‘entryism’, by simply swamping the local branches. Note that before 83, Liverpool’s Labour contingent was quite a right of centre bunch by Labour standards- three out of five of them joined the SDP.
Liverpool’s political history is fascinating.
This analysis is very interesting. The swing against Labour in 2005 was wholly to the Liberal Democrats, if you account for the 3,000 votes gained by the Liberal Democrats and then accept a certain tactical voting tendency in Basingstoke, evidenced by the previous results and the local elections, then the new seat is a very intriguing fight.
The Borough Council is deeply divided between the three major parties and despite the Tory resurgence they can still only look forward to a one seat council majority at the most, if they can hold everything they’ve got.
The volatility in Basingstoke’s local politics will be further exaggerated with the new local ward Boundaries likely to be fought in all outs in 2008, their are more marginals than ever, thus a hung council is likely result again.
In this climate an outright Tory win in the next General Election can not be considered a forgone conclusion, the local campaign will count for much on the new parliamentary boundaries.
Not sure why Joe Broughton says that the Tories didn’t perform well here in 2005 – in fact the swing was above the national average. I reckon the Tories actually benefited from Hunter’s departure here. His Ulster Says No obsession always made him a rather poor constituency MP in many voters’ eyes.
Labour will probably win here one day – but not yet.
The share of the vote fell slightly compared to 1997 and 2001. That’s not a good result.
Labour lost some of their extra votes to the Lib Dems and that increased the Tory majority.
“Labour will probably win here one day – but not yet.”
Depends on future boundary proposals -
If the seat is cropped down further to its urban core, and there is a future Labour landslide this would be a real prospect for Labour.
If, however, the Basingstoke & Deane Borough is divided into two Basingstoke seats (urban and rural), I think a Labour MP would be far less likely – even under a Labour landslide.
This seat is often mentioned as a possible Labour gain, and might well have been won by Labour in 97 and 01 on these boundaries. do they have a candidate in place?
I thought Labour would win here in 97 – and fairly comfortably too – but as is typical in Hampshire, even the more urban places elect Tories (see Gosport, Havant, Andover etc) – drawing obvious comparisons to Essex
Can’t see them winning now – not with Monday Club member Andrew Hunter a relic of the past
The Tories should gain overall control of Basingstoke and Deane tomorrow. It’s certainly taken a long time – losing control in 1994.
This is still a pretty marginal seat actually – but incumbency and a national swing mean Labour have missed their chance for quite a long time, I guess.
Maria Millar seems to be a rising star.
All seats are up in Basingstoke due to ward boundary changes. I think the Conservatives did briefly have control after last May but lost it again due to a by-election. They should be able to win a decent majority there in the circumstances.
The Tories should be able to win virtually anywhere in the south-east where all the seats are up for graps in the current political climate, (although I don’t know if there are any others apart from Basingstoke without looking it up. Probably not.)
Welwyn Hatfield has all out elections too. I think the only others are two in Cumbria – Barrow and South Lakeland
Oh really – good.
All out elections can be good fun.
I loved the 2007 Windsor and Maidenhead count where Lib Dems just got chucked ward after ward and the decapitated leader had to escape past us.
I wonder if that will happen in South Lakeland. I somehow rather doubt it.
Welswyn Hatfield should see almost a complete Labour wipeout and a complete Lib Dem wipeout but the Tories already have a big majority there
South Lakeland does sound less likely – but I wonder.
I was scanning the BBC 2008 web-site and they have the list of councils all ready with blank results – it’s incredible to think Cherwell was Labour in 1996 but both Lab and LD are down to 4 councillors now against 40+ Tories.
Local election results Basingstoke and Deane
Local Election of 1st May 2008
Electorate : 118798
Turnout : 44468 (37%)
Group Number of Councillors
Conservative (CON) 35
Liberal Democrat (LIB) 14
Labour (LAB) 9
Independent (IND) 2
Green (GRN) 0
Votes by party in Parliamentary Constituency wards were
Con 12124 46.8%
LDem 7123 27.5%
Lab 5464 21.1%
Oth 1215 4.6%
with a 3% swing from Con to LibDem from the 2007 local results
Labour still have one County Council ward in Basingstoke which has a pretty large majority.
In the outlying wards, they had low votes.
I think the majority here will probably rise to about 7,000 (20%)
“Labour still have one County Council ward in Basingstoke which has a pretty large majority.
Basingstoke – Social Housing: 20.7% (Council: 0.8%, Housing Ass.: 19.9%)
Are these two facts connected perhaps?
The results of the County Council elections 2009 in Basingstoke.
Cons 46%
Lib Dems 29%
Lab 17 %
Others 8%
Labour lost a County seat to the Lib Dems, and look set to lose another 2 Borough seats next year.
Outside a few wards, Labour are nowhere, they polled just 8% in the Euros.
The most likely general election result is Conservatives winning but Lib Dems a clear second place. The Lib Dems currently have more Borough and County Councillors in Basingstoke than Labour.
It will be an interesting seat to watch when the Conservatives poularity drops in Government. (even the shadow cabinet are predicting they will be the most unpopular government ever)
LDs say their going to get into second place quite often,
but complain if anyone predicts that for another party.
I think this will become a fairly safe Tory seat for the immediate/medium period that lies ahead – it remains to be seen if Labour does better in the future.
A Tory government (which is not certain) could become as unpopular as the government of 1980-1 but then it could not.
I doubt it would score 23 or 24% in a set of elections in a first term, but who knows.
How far is the future Joe James B? I read on here that you like the “certainty” of two party politics, but that mould has been shattered in 3 of the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom; and in the last redoubt it is coming under increasing attack (and not just from the YellowPeril). It will be interesting to see if in, say, 3 electrol cycles time the “English” element sees 30/25/25/10/10vote splits leading to Bundestag style coalitions…..
I should add that I agree with you – safe Conservative hold here and SIr George will be safe next door, not surprising as he is a decent guy.
The 2005 County Council Election results for Basingstoke & Deane (not the same as the constituency) gave the Conservatives 44.1%, Labour 24.2% and the LDs 30.3%.
This includes divisions more favourable to the Tories and LDs and less so for Labour, but nevertheless indicates an LD bonus in local election voting on the same day as a General Election, when the seat was C/Lab and notionally close.
The May 1986 local elections seemed quite a bad reverse for
a government – at the time.
They polled 34% of the projected national vote,
and lost about 700-800 seats, most of which were somewhat
unexpectedly held during the Falklands War in 1982.
Governments regularly seem to poll less in local elections
now, even 29% in May 2000 counted for very little in 2001.
But Basingstoke & Deane was a rare Tory gain in 1986.
Not sure why this was.
I think Joe is generally right. This seat could well fall to Labour at some point in the future-in fact I’d be amazed if it didn’t. But it will remain safe for the time being.
As for the 1986 gain, well I’m not sure about that. I suppose it could be any reason such as picking up a seat lost in a by-election. Or maybe it just genuinely went against the national trend. Who knows how people think in local elections?
The point about governments performing worse in local elections in recent times is also interesting. It seems to be true that the Tories have performed better in government when it came to local elections than Labour have done. For instance, it took until 1990 (11 years) for Labour to pull ahead as the largest party in local government, but it took the Tories only until 2003 (6 years).
And yet strangely, BBC coverage of local elections since 1998 have always pointed out how much better the Labour government was doing compared to the Tory governments of the past. I wonder how those two facts can be reconciled?
29% in May 2000 must have been within a whisker of the horror of 1968, and was certainly below famous reverses such as 1977.
I thought Labour did overtake as the largest local party before 1990 – thanks, interesting.
I take that as corrected though.
I guess it took Labour longer to catch up because
of their problems in the early 80s,
although actually they didn’t do too badly in May 1983 (obviously not June).
For instance, it took until 1990 (11 years) for Labour to pull ahead as the largest party in local government, but it took the Tories only until 2003 (6 years).
Media support, I’m afraid, again, Shaun. The largest part of the press and TV make friendly Tory style noises, even when they are not formally supporting that party. That in my view explains why the Tories dominated Govt throughout the 20th Century.
“The largest part of … TV make friendly Tory style noises”
Surely you are joking Tim? is that genuinely your perception?
The point Shaun was making (and I concur) was that the media narrative has been one of Tory failure which is not necessarily commensurate with the facts
Labour did advance in local government in most years through the 80s,
except in 1982 – (Falklands/Alliance),
and although they recovered to about 37% in 1985 – the SDP hadn’t contested the 1981 elections, so some losses there.
Also May 1987.
Then the Tories did ok until the Euro elections in 1989.
Even so, I thought Labour had over-took about 1986.
I remember in May 1999 they said several times on the local elections program that no government had done this well in a set of local elections
(national projection 37% to 34%),
before switching to Scotland and blanking the rest of the coverage of the English districts.
That said, some of their coverage is good.
BBC election coverage has improved a touch since the nadir of Jeremy Vine parading “Ming’s bling” and the other occasion when he performed some kind of cowboy skit, but then it really couldn’t get much worse than that. Talk about patronising the viewer. They should realise though that once an election programme goes into the wee small hours (particularly if it is a local election) that they can afford to assume a greater degree of political knowledge on the part of the audience. It’s almost certainly only us political obsessives that are watching by then, so surely they could do a bit more in depth analysis for our benefit. It’s also disappointing that now we have 24 hour news channels we no longer get a proper, dedicated by-election special programme on the night of such an election (that is when the count takes place on the night as it should, unlike in Norwich N).
The Decision 79 program was good for technical information
and analysis,
although it did have a few errors which Tories might have
thought were an attempt to prolong the unwelcome truth,
although actually I think they were genuine as Labour didn’t
go down without a fight in the marginals and it’s just possible
the Tories could have failed to reach the 318.
In fact, they showed relatively few declarations and the fact
that it was still interesting showed you it was a higher quality
than the kind of thing you get today.
The Vine incident was awful and I think they have taken it
on board.
That said, I think they have made an effort to improve it,
and they did do some quite good coverage in the Crewe & Nantwich
by-election.
On the subject of relative Labour and Conservative performances in local elections over the past 30 years, my impression looking at the historical projected national shares is that the Tory vote held up better for longer during our time in government than Labour’s has over the last 12 years. Our average share in the years 1980-1991 inclusive was 36.83%. Our best performance to date since 1979 came in 1992 when a few weeks after the GE we scored 46%. It was only from 1993 onwards that our vote began to collapse to 31% in ‘93, followed by 28% the following year and the trough of 25% in 1995.
Labour’s average vote share since 1998, excluding those years in which the local elections have taken place on the same day as the GE, has been 32.33% and there has been a consistent downward trend, whereas the Tory share was more up and down (as I say until our decline really began to set in in 1993). Labour’s projected share this year of 23% is also a level to which the Tories did not descend, even during the fag end years of the Major government. To me this shows that Labour’s popularity at local level has fallen further, faster and more consistently than did the popularity of the last Tory government. The one caveat I will add to the mix though is that I do feel that since the end of the 1980s there has been a decline in political tribalism and a corresponding rise in electoral volatility, thus governments are probably more likely to perform more poorly in local elections than in the past.
I think Labour have been pretty complacent about low turnouts – which may not have mattered in the early 2000s but is a problem for them now as swing voters peel away.
Kieran, I actually think Labour’s average local election projected vote (excluding GE years) from 1998 onwards averages 29.2%.
But I agree with your points.
It hasn’t been 30% since 2003 to my knowledge.
But I am doing it as a straight average of 10 years.
I agree with your caveat – to be fair to Labour, I think there are a number of changes in society which mean governments are more likely to underperform in anything which is not a General Election.
I understand by-elections in the 1950s were very stable aswell, although they have a different nature to local elections anyway.
The 1996 shares were Lab – 43%, C – 29%, LD – 24% and the 1997 general election result was Lab – 44%, C – 31%, LD – 17% so the Tories only added 2% in the final year. Since Labour was only on around 22% this year it isn’t looking good for them if the experience of the Tories in 1996-97 is anything to do by.
The Evening Standard headline in May 1996 was
“Phew! It’s only a disaster”.
You are right Joe re Labour’s average score should be just over 29%. I thought it looked a bit high given that as you rightly say they have had a series of scores in the 20s. I must have slipped in a GE figure by mistake.
It just goes to show how shallow support for New Labour actually was.
I’ve always thought that the fact that the Tories were subjected to a couple of landslide defeats in terms of seats ‘97 and ‘01 masked the fact that we never really lost the support of not far off a third of the voting population. Tactical voting created a situation where this was not enough to win councils, council seats and parliamentary seats across vast swathes of the country. But the fact that we still retained that level of support meant that predictions of the party never again being a potential party of government and of being replaced as the main opposition were always likely to be misplaced.
The difference with Labour now is that their core vote is starting to fall away. I don’t think ours ever really did (except perhaps in 1995), it’s just that it was too evenly spread across the country to win many FPTP elections. It’s this that makes me think that Labour are in a more perilous situation now than we were for the decade following 1993.
OOOh Kieran – I am afraid “your” core support DID drop away in the post 1992 period. I think NuLab was an “anti – ideological” response, if you like, to Thatcher’s unusual – for – Tories ideological positions. It did not come naturally either to Labour members, or their normal supporters in the country. It does depend, of course, on who you describe as “core support”. There was a discussion 3 or 4 days ago about West Oxon DC, and how former Tory councillors all stood as Independents in the 95 District elections (can’t remember which seat thread that was on!)
“Labour did advance in local government in most years through the 80s,
except in 1982 – (Falklands/Alliance),
and although they recovered to about 37% in 1985 – the SDP hadn’t contested the 1981 elections, so some losses there.
Also May 1987.
Then the Tories did ok until the Euro elections in 1989.
Even so, I thought Labour had over-took about 1986.”
Actually it took until 1991 for Labour to have more local councillors than the Conservatives.
Labour also lost councillors in 1982, 1985, 1987 and 1992 and made fewer than 100 gains in 1983, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1989. Labour flatlined throughout the 1980s, having 8999 councillors in 1981 and only 8920 in 1990.
The big gainers in councillors in the 1980s were the LibDems.
“I remember in May 1999 they said several times on the local elections program that no government had done this well in a set of local elections
(national projection 37% to 34%),”
Apart from the Conservatives in 1982, 1983, 1987 and 1992.
And on actual % vote several other times as well.
Tim, I would define Tory core support as being 30% of the national vote. It only fell below that in the 1994 locals and Europeans when it was 28%, 1995 locals when it was 25% and in 1996 when there was a bit if a recovery to 29%. Aside from the ‘95 result to me that indicates that the Tory core had it’s surface scratched rather than really being eaten into. The FPTP electoral system and tactical voting made the Tory decline look worse than it actually was by creating a situation in which vast numbers of seats were lost across the country.
Labour would have made large gains in 1980 and 1981, before the SDP took off.
I think one has to really compare the figure against 1979.
On Kieran’s point, it’s hard to work out what the irreducable minimum is for either party.
Quite a lot of “core” voters still don’t vote outside General Elections,
but the Tories in 1995 and Labour in 2008/2009 must have tested it to destruction.
“I thought Labour overtook by 1986″
No, the Tories still had more councils and councillors than Labour right up until 1989 and then Labour moved into the lead in 1990.
Interestingly, Labour started off in 1997 with roughly the same councillor numbers as the Tories had in 1979. In fact, the Tories had control of LESS councils than Labour had in 1979 because of course Labour still dominated in the Welsh and Scottish districts, the inner London boroughs and some English districts and metropolitan areas as well as the metropolitan counties. By contrast, by 1997 the Tories only controlled 1 county, a couple of london boroughs and a handful of English districts (many by majorities of 1 or 2 seats).
And yet not only did the Tories turn the situation around after 1997 much quicker than Labour managed after 1979, but according to the media such as the BBC local election coverage, the Tories performance in most local elections since 1997 was pretty dire.
Of course, the disparity may be because in 1998-2001 the media were comparing with Labour’s astonishing performances in 1994-96, and then in 2002-08 they were comparing with the Conservatives often pretty good performances (although talked down at the time) of 2000 onwards.
Just goes to show how local election results each year can be manipulated by the media just by using a different base each time.
It certainly seems easier to get 26 or 27% in a set of local elections and get away with it than it used to be.
Thanks for the figures Shaun – it’s good to have more detail on this.
Shaun, I think part of the problem is that people look at councils and councillors when they should really look at vote share. Aside from questions as to the methodology of calculating a projected national share, I feel that it is the best way of measuring the popularity of the main political parties that transcends the tendancy of FPTP to exaggerate the winning margin for parties on the up, and magnifies the decline of parties on a downward spiral.
“No, the Tories still had more councils and councillors than Labour right up until 1989 and then Labour moved into the lead in 1990.”
From the HoP official statistics:
1990
Con 9020
Lab 8920
1991
Lab 9504
Con 7985
It took 12 years for Labour to take the lead but only 6 for the Conservatives.
Perhaps the key to this is
the big one is
the 79/83/87/91/95/99/03/07
round.
It is lower key because nothing in London for lazy journalists, and perhaps a little harder to project the share of the vote.
Labour didn’t really get a chance to make big inroads on this one until 1991 as otherwise it had coincided with the General Elections, and even in 1991 it was a good performance but not good enough.
I don’t think the Biog piece above is correct re this seat and Andrew Hunter. He sat as an Ind Con in the Commons as the Tories new policy prevented him standing for both the NI Assembly and Westminster; but, obviously he did stand for the DUP and ironically lost to the Lagan Valley MP Jeffrey Donaldson before he himself defected to the DUP also. Any ideas what he’s upto these days?
The Lib Dems have selected John Shaw here – he stood in Southampton Test in 2001
Basingstoke
May 2010
Most likely
*Con 22,473 47.5% +9.2%
Lab 13,531 28.6% -5.2%
LD 7,522 15.9% -5.8%
BNP 1,372 2.9%
Green 1,325 2.8%
UKIP 1,088 2.3%
Con majority 18.9%
Total votes 47,311
Swing 7.2% from Lab to Con
Con Hold
Labour still have several district councillors here.
Surely on these new bounderies if they were faught in 97 & 01, this would have been a labour seat?
Yes Sparky – well certainly in 2001, and probably in 1997 too.
Yes, that is pretty clear. Come the next Labour landslide, this could be vulnerable.
…well, unless of course the constituency quota were to be increased for whatever reason in the near future. That would probably see Tory wards from the fringes of the town added back to the seat perhaps.
…Alternatively, I wonder what the chances are of getting a Basingstoke North and Basingstoke South seats?
Cons Hold= 5,000 maj
LOL I actually think the Conservative majority will be bigger here. It will be a Labour gain one of these days though, I reckon.
I’m not sure Barnaby. This seat is certainly on a long term swing to Labour. As you say, one day, they will win it. But unless Labour really collapses here, I can’t see the Tory majority being much higher than 5,000 even in a good year.
Also, don’t forget that turnout is important for determining the majority. I am working on the basis of only a slight improvement from last time-although some seats may be dramatically up. I can’t see why this one should be one of those.
Now the percentage majority is a far more difficult prospect.
A comfortable Conservative hold close for 2nd between Labour and LibDem . I don’t see where this long term movement to Labour is in this constituency . In the CC elections last year their vote was down to 18% and the LibDems gained Basingstoke Central from Labour with a large majority and Labour dropping to 3rd .
Don’t agree with that. I think a clear Labour 2nd place.
CON 7000
C hold maj 7000
Con Hold
Maj 4100
Con maj 8,000
With the Lib Dems up 8% from the last GE they should get second on 29.7%. If they gain a further 6% over the next few weeks they could get to 35.7% and then if the Tories dropped 3% they would be down to 35.3% and this could mean a shock Lib Dem win.
Stella Howard is UKIP candidate here, according to UKIP main web site.
With the recent jump in popularity in the Lib Dems – they have a good chance of being successful in this seat. They were a strong 2nd in the local elections and with polls showing a large swing to Lib Dems, coupled with the boundary changes, this may well become a Lib Dem seat.
A narrow CON win seems the most likely. Applying the current UK Polling report polling average (C33, L27, LD 29) to Basingstoke on a UNS (albeit a shaky model at the moment because of the volatile electorate) to the *notional* 2005 result because of the boundary changes you’d get:
C 14250
LD 12522
L 11651
Others 4750
C maj. 1728
But that assumes 2010 turnout is the same at 2005 – I suspect it will be higher. It also assumes a uniform national swing – but as I say again, I’m not sure that’s a guaranteed anywhere at the moment. Likewise, the pressure on the ‘Others’ vote and how, if at all, the big three lose to or benefit from.
Gut instinct is at present, Basingstoke is close to being a three-way marginal on current polling figures, but with a CON victory the most likely (I think!).
UKIP Candidate Stella H Howell is confirmed. Why is her imagine blocked from display. Hey, come on, lets have a fair election.
CON HOLD
Excellent Conservative result here.
50% of the vote… 13,000 majority.
” PETE [Plopwell?]
With the recent jump in popularity in the Lib Dems – they have a good chance of being successful in this seat. They were a strong 2nd in the local elections and with polls showing a large swing to Lib Dems, coupled with the boundary changes, this may well become a Lib Dem seat.
”
lol !
This was a truly rotten result for Labour, in a seat where they/we really ought to be competitive. Although Labour generally did poorly in Southern New Towns, this result stands out as a particularly bad one.
I hate to be the one to mention this, but does anyone think the ethnicity of the Labour candidate played a part here – as in Hemel Hempstead?
It’s hard to rule out entirely, but I think it wasn’t the major cause.
I doubt it was that.
Labour seemed to do particularly badly in New Towns which they didn’t win in 2005.
They may regain second though.
I thought Labour would hold second place here.
yes, a weak second though.
I’m a little surprised the Tory vote rose this much,
I thought about 7-8%.
I don’t think it was the major cause, it was just noticeable that Labour did so much worse in those 2 seats than the likes of Crawley and Harlow (where the swing to the Conservatives was less than in 2005)
It may have been some incumbency effect. Certainly Mike Penning had made a good impression in Hemel and maybe Maria Miller, also first elected in 2005, did likewise here. In Harlow of course Bill Rammel may have enjoyed some incumbency boost (though obviously this wasn’t available to the Labour candidate in Crawley). Hemel in particular saw the ‘double-incumbency effect’ so beloved of Robert Waller, that is to say there was both the loss of the previous Labour MPs incumbency vote plus whatever incumbency effect Mike Penning had built up.