If you read back through this thread, you will note that there has been much debate on UKPR’s figures – including contributions from the Tory PPC, Chris Whiteside. Railings & Thrasher put the notional majority at 13.24%. Incidentally Electoral Calculus had even narrower notionals but these were based on local election results which I was confident were inaccurate, mainly due to uncontested Tory wards.

It was on the basis of Railings & Thrasher’s 13.24% that Copeland was considered a key marginal by both the Labour and Tory parties, requiring a 6.62% swing – less than the 6.9% the Tories required for an overall majority. Indeed, the Tory PPC went on record repeatedly to say that he had a more than 50% chance of taking the seat.

As for the “in other news”

This was the first time the BNP fought the parliamentary seat: their presence made the seat MORE vulnerable than the 13.24% indicated. They had got over 3000 votes at the Euro/local elections 12 months ago.

Jamie Reed was ill for the second half of the campaign – and therefore was not on the campaign trail or the doorstep.

I can assure you that from the reaction of both Jamie Reed and Chris Whiteside to the declaration that neither of them was expecting it to be such a comfortable “Labour hold”.

The Tory vote did enjoy a significant numerical increase, but the Labour vote also increased numerically. The Tories worked this seat hard – and there was evidence locally of significant money being spent – but they were up against a popular MP with a strong track record on local issues. Attempts by his political opponents – of every colour – to undermine his credibility obviously didn’t work.

Jamie Reed has worked this seat extremely hard for five years – something the Copeland electorate weren’t used to because his predecessor, Jack Cunningham, was hardly in the constituency for much of the 35 years he was the MP – particularly during his many years on Labour’s front bench.

If you look at the local election results – even 12 months ago when Labour still held onto 7 of the 12 County Council wards – this seat has the potential to be much safer for Labour than it has been in recent decades – provided it continues to be “worked” with the same energy as Jamie Reed has put in over the past 5 years.

In other news…..
* The local BNP campaign backfired horridly when a leading light in the local party, Simon Nicholson, left and had a full page expose in the Mirror the sunday before the election. The BNP candidate, Clive Jefferson made a complete hash of his campaign, failing to show up at hustings he was invited to and an online webchat. There were also rumours that he had problems with his leaflets – having them printed off but failing to put his name or constituency on it. Spending most of the campaign in Barking helping Nick Griffin also wouldn’t have helped his campaign – but it left the door open for Labour to capitalise on his absence in their traditional heartlands.
*Jamie Reed spent a week of the campaign in hospital, being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. People wondered whether this might have resulted in a “sympathy vote”. I’m not sure. Any sympathy vote would have been cancelled out by his inability to be on the doorstep or attend hustings during the second half of the campaign. Significantly, he wasn’t able to do anything meaningful in Keswick where he isn’t really known and hasn’t been able to build up a reputation – beyond what he was able to there during last November’s devastating floods (in his capacity as Deputy Regional Minister). Ministerial visits (notably Ed Miliband) had to be cancelled – though, given the unpopularity of the national party, this may have actually helped the local campaign.

Like Barrow, the Lib Dem vote was squeezed. This may have been the reverse psychology of Cleggmania – ie. it made the Lib Dems enough of a threat for the main parties to have to remind voters that they were anti-nuclear new build. Also, Keswick’s Lib Dems who could have previously voted Lib Dem safely in the knowledge they were in a safe Labour seat, found themself in a marginal and consequently may have changed their voting behaviour.