Rotherham
2010 Results:
Conservative: 6279 (16.74%)
Labour: 16741 (44.64%)
Liberal Democrat: 5994 (15.98%)
BNP: 3906 (10.41%)
UKIP: 2220 (5.92%)
Independent: 2366 (6.31%)
Majority: 10462 (27.9%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 18631 (56.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 5643 (17.1%)
Conservative: 4608 (13.9%)
Other: 4199 (12.7%)
Majority: 12988 (39.3%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 4966 (16.6%)
Labour: 15840 (52.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 5159 (17.2%)
BNP: 1986 (6.6%)
Green: 905 (3%)
UKIP: 1122 (3.7%)
Majority: 10681 (35.6%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 5682 (19.4%)
Labour: 18759 (63.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 3117 (10.6%)
UKIP: 730 (2.5%)
Green: 577 (2%)
Other: 489 (1.7%)
Majority: 13077 (44.5%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 5383 (14.3%)
Labour: 26852 (71.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 3919 (10.4%)
Referendum: 1132 (3%)
Other: 364 (1%)
Majority: 21469 (57%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Denis MacShane(Labour) (more information at They work for you)
Jackie Whiteley (Conservative)Denis MacShane(Labour) (more information at They work for you)Rebecca Taylor (Liberal Democrat)Caven Vines (UKIP) Marlene Guest (BNP) Peter Thirlwall (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 87580
Male: 48.7%
Female: 51.3%
Under 18: 25.3%
Over 60: 19.8%
Born outside UK: 4.3%
White: 93.4%
Black: 0.2%
Asian: 5.4%
Mixed: 0.7%
Other: 0.3%
Christian: 73.6%
Muslim: 5.4%
Full time students: 2.3%
Graduates 16-74: 9.5%
No Qualifications 16-74: 40.1%
Owner-Occupied: 55.7%
Social Housing: 35.4% (Council: 30.6%, Housing Ass.: 4.8%)
Privately Rented: 4.8%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 5.6%
Warofdreams-
“If this was a one-off, it’d be bad enough, but when their best performance of the night was halving their vote share, the party really needs to think about its future, and where it wants to be at the next election.”
I can see where you’re coming from, nevertheless none of these by-elections have been in places where the Lib Dem vote is of any importance to them.
In order to draw conclusions about Lib Dem seats at the next election, we need evidence of what is happening to Lib Dem votes in areas where they hold seats or are in close contention – especially against the Tories (I take it as given that most Lib Dem-Lab marginals will go back to Labour). An Eastleigh by-election would be an ideal test, as would a Tory marginal like South East Cornwall.
The Tories in Eastleigh seem eternally hopless. LD even topped the poll in PCC contest in Eastleigh council area.
@The Results
I agree up to a point – the walkout of party members, the behaviour of the previous MP and the fostering situation were three of things I was thinking about when I was saying how this could have been a disaster.
Increasing their vote share, under those circumstances, it quite impressive – although, as I say, they were in part self-made, and the party shouldn’t get self-congratulatory.
But Labour were always favourites to win the seat – they have a sufficient core vote here who will always vote Labour, that no other party is likely to be able to overtake it. UKIP did really well, but I can’t imagine any realistic situation where they would take more vote share than they did. Only a sufficiently popular independent could have taken the seat, and nobody appeared.
@H.Hemmelig
I agree that a by-election somewhere like that would be far more revealing and, in theory, they could do alright at the next election if their vote share held up in the seats they care about. Given that they did so badly the next tier of seats, those such as Manchester Central and Cardiff South, which could have become targets if they were in opposition and doing well, and also did so badly in the PCC elections, I can’t see there being a big different (beyond personal votes) in how they do in those seats where they have been in contention.
This was about as ‘remarkable’ as Labour winning East Ham or the Tories winning Beckenham at the 2010 GE.
There is nothing remarkable about the Labour victory here. The UKIP performance and maybe the ED result is the only thing remarkable about this particular by election.
Maybe so, but it has to be said Labour did very well just to marginally increase their vote considering the supposed threat they were facing from UKIP.
Oddly enough I actually think the result is a bit depressing for UKIP because it brings home to the party how they could poll about 20% in a large number of seats at the next election and not get anyone elected.
The SDP/Liberal Alliance famously polled 26% and won only 23 seats in 1983 but it would probably be even worse for UKIP: they could win 26% and no seats at all.
It is quite clear from the run of by-elections that we’ve had that UKIP will not win any seats in 2015- They just don’t have quite enough support. Even the Lib Dems are guaranteed to win at least some seats at the next election so that says a lot.
UKIP’s best chance of winning a seat would be to go hard for a 3-way marginal in the south west where they could win on 30% of the vote. Somewhere like the old Falmouth & Cambourne.
UKIP will do well in many seats I suspect in 2015, and will have many more saved deposits.
I have a query with Rotherham MBC concerning the votes for Labour (RMBC = 9966, BBC = 9866) and TUSC (RMBC = 281 BBC = 261)
Anybody shed any light?
I think UKIP do have a chance of winning seats in 2015. The Green Party have managed it.
There is a potential scenario where with the right candidate and the right circumstances they could win a by-election and go on to retain the seat they had won.
Supposing Christchurch came up again for example – if enough voters wanted to vent their anger at the Conservatives they would probably not switch to LibDems again any time soon, and Labour would surely be very unlikely to win there. Obviously this is not something I am hoping for but it’s plausible.
I must say, though, it was remarkably good fortune for UKIP that the child fostering row in Rotherham happened to coincide with the by-election in the same town. One wonders how they would have performed otherwise.
HH & TheResults – you’re both partly right, but not entirely. As TheResults said, circumstances in this particular by-election were unusually in favour of UKIP, and all of the things he cites are clearly factors in what happened. If there had been a by-election here when a respected Labour MP had died, not a crook, the selection had been uncontroversial and clearly reflected the wishes of the local party and the adoption row hadn’t simultaneously occurred, the Labour vote would have been well over 50%, in fact probably closer to 60, and UKIP while very likely still getting 2nd place wouldn’t have been even a slight threat. I don’t agree with TheResults however when he concludes that it was “remarkable” that Labour held on; it would have been remarkable had they/we lost. Nevertheless, it’s clear that UKIP are enjoying unprecedented success, and Labour will have to think about how they combat them in some areas. Farage as a personality isn’t all that attractive and the message of the party as a whole is perfectly capable of being succesfully attacked; but woe betide Labour if it repeats the crude tactics used in Crewe & Nantwich a few years ago. (Shudders in memory of them….)
Well, I personally believe that UKIP should really have capitalised and they didn’t- They finished 25% behind Labour.
The returning officer certainly said “9,866” at the declaration, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was the correct result because it is what’s written on the official declaration document that counts and sometimes returning officers make errors at the microphone.
“Oddly enough I actually think the result is a bit depressing for UKIP because it brings home to the party how they could poll about 20% in a large number of seats at the next election and not get anyone elected.
The SDP/Liberal Alliance famously polled 26% and won only 23 seats in 1983 but it would probably be even worse for UKIP: they could win 26% and no seats at all.”
While the general point is valid, I don’t think it likely that UKIP could poll 26% nationally and fail to win in a number of seats. Bear in mind that there are swathes of the country where UKIP’s potential is limited in particular large parts of London, many other inner urban and ethnic minority areas and not to mention Scotland. For UKIP to poll 26% nationally they would surely be getting 30-35% in some of the sdtronger regions such as the East and South West and in that case they would likely to be winning some seats. Of course the seats won would not be commensurate with the share of the vote and this is always a problem with FPTP – still is for the LDs although they are far better targetted now than they were in 1983. The geographical distribution of UKIP support however would be more favourable I believe than was the case for the Alliance then
It’s a horrible thought that
we could have an 144 seat Ed Miliband majority
with Emily Thornbury as Home Secretarty and a special remit to be tough on men and soft on crime.
Labour 31.2% 397
Con 28.3% 209
UKIP 28.0% 8
Limp Dujm 5% 16
sorry should have taken some water with it
but it’s a warning shot…
pass the Gloy
need a sniff.
“with Emily Thornbury as Home Secretarty and a special remit to be tough on men and soft on crime.”
So no real change to having Theresa May as Home Secretary then.
Joe you really need to do something about the glue-sniffing. Even if just for the sake of the Tories.
The Results – although you have to factor in how much support Labour had already lost here in 2010. MacShane led to their voters going to the BNP, Ind, UKIP, Tory or staying at home.
“It’s a horrible thought that
we could have an 144 seat Ed Miliband majority
with Emily Thornbury as Home Secretarty and a special remit to be tough on men and soft on crime.
Labour 31.2% 397
Con 28.3% 209
UKIP 28.0% 8
Limp Dujm 5% 16”
Miliband doesn’t bother me as he’ll be a useless PM but its Balls that I’m worried about. As for Thornberry…she’ll be a good Home Secretary opening up our borders when wider than they are already.
Lol … if the LDs got 5% they wouldn’t have as many as 16 seats. They probably wouldn’t hold a single English or Welsh seat with that national vote.
Nor would UKIP have anything like as few as 8. They’d have to have several at 40 plus at 28% nationally when you consider their weak areas. Id have thought about 30 to 40 seats would be more like it.
all things considered the Labour HQ in London has handled this by- election quite well.