Labour achieves panda-parity in Scotland

[SteveH]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67024349

[Nearly Sane]

A good night for Labour in Scotland, if not the 'seismic' shock described. Difficult to read the electoral tealeaveson this, as the circumstances as covered in
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19978.0
are unusual.

The collapse of the Tory vote is a piece of tactical voting for Labour unlikely to be repeated at a GE. I would also suspect that a fair number of SNP voters in a GE stayed at home this time.

Attention now switches to the by elections in England in 2 weeks caused by Mad Nad and the groper. Again both have specific circumstances which will reduce their overall significance.

[ProfessorDavey]

A good night for Labour in Scotland, if not the 'seismic' shock described.

A 20% swing sounds pretty seismic to me. I think this is the largest swing in by election history against a party other than Labour or the Tories.

And I think the margin of victory was far greater than most pundits were predicting.

[Nearly Sane]

A 20% swing sounds pretty seismic to me. I think this is the largest swing in by election history against a party other than Labour or the Tories.

And I think the margin of victory was far greater than most pundits were predicting.

Taking back a seat last won by Labour in 2017, and given the circumstances, and what happened between 2017 and 2019 in GEs, and this getting Labour to a whole 2 MPs in Scotland, then it's not seismic.

[Aruntraveller]

A 20% swing sounds pretty seismic to me. I think this is the largest swing in by election history against a party other than Labour or the Tories.

And I think the margin of victory was far greater than most pundits were predicting.

It is an encouraging result, but there was only a 37% turnout which doesn't give you a great deal of insight into the thinking of those who basically stayed away. Are they SNP voters who just wanted the party to get a bit of thumping or is there more going on?

By elections are notoriously difficult to extrapolate from.

I agree the margin is much better than was expected but still.....

[SteveH]

20% is the biggest swing I can recall ever hearing of. Whatever caveats the SNP choose to comfort themselves with - low turnout, the by-election effect, the disgrace of the previous incumbent - it's a dreadful result for them, and one they'll have difficulty overturning at the GE, in little over a year at the most, and probably under a year.

[Nearly Sane]

20% is the biggest swing I can recall ever hearing of. Whatever caveats the SNP choose to comfort themselves with - low turnout, the by-election effect, the disgrace of the previous incumbent - it's a dreadful result for them, and one they'll have difficulty overturning at the GE, in little over a year at the most, and probably under a year.

And? That's nothing to do with it being 'seismic'. Winning a seat held in 2017?

As to biggest swing, not even close. Have a look here


https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/12/17/biggest-by-election-swings-against-a-uk-government-since-1981/

[Nearly Sane]

And? That's nothing to do with it being 'seismic'. Winni g a seat held in 2017?

As to biggest swing, not even close. Have a look here


https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/12/17/biggest-by-election-swings-against-a-uk-government-since-1981/

Not even the biggest by election swing in 2023.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/byelection-results-uxbridge-selby-ainsty-b2379363.html

[ProfessorDavey]

Not even the biggest by election swing in 2023.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/byelection-results-uxbridge-selby-ainsty-b2379363.html

Which was also seismic. And that was a swing in a westminster by-election against the party of government in westminster. You expect big swings in the dog days of a government. This was a plus 20% swing against a party that is neither in government, nor the official opposition, in westminster. It is the largest swing against a party of that type in by election history.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/12/17/biggest-by-election-swings-against-a-uk-government-since-1981/

Biggest by election swings against a uk government since 1981.

Since when are the SNP the UK government?

[Nearly Sane]

Biggest by election swings against a uk government since 1981.

Since when are the SNP the UK government?

Who said they were? Since what I was replying to was SteveH writing '20% is the biggest swing I can recall ever hearing of.' - your caveat here is irrelevant.

[Nearly Sane]

Which was also seismic. And that was a swing in a westminster by-election against the party of government in westminster. You expect big swings in the dog days of a government. This was a plus 20% swing against a party that is neither in government, nor the official opposition, in westminster. It is the largest swing against a party of that type in by election history.

And yet both of those are less 'seismic' than Uxbridge. Again, it's a recall by election in a seat that Labour held less than 4 years ago.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet both of those are less 'seismic' than Uxbridge.

Eh - in what way was Uxbridge seismic - the term clearly relates to the amount of movement (i.e. the swing) rather than who actually wins the seat. The swing in Uxbridge was approx. 7% so clearly less seismic than a 20% swing in Rutherglen (the largest swing in by election history against a party that wasn't either in government or the official opposition).

Again, it's a recall by election in a seat that Labour held less than 4 years ago.

As indicated above seismic refers to the swing not who actually wins the seat.

A situation where a party that was massively behind in the pervious election, has a swing of 25% in a by election but just fails to take the seat is more seismic than a marginal seat where a party takes (or retakes) a seat on a swing of 2%.

The bottom line is that most people expected Labour to win the by election - it was the margin of the victory and the level of the swing from SNP to Labour that surprised most pundits, including perhaps the most respected of all in terms of scottish politics John Curtis.

[Nearly Sane]

Eh - in what way was Uxbridge seismic - the term clearly relates to the amount of movement (i.e. the swing) rather than who actually wins the seat. The swing in Uxbridge was approx. 7% so clearly less seismic than a 20% swing in Rutherglen (the largest swing in by election history against a party that wasn't either in government or the official opposition).
As indicated above seismic refers to the swing not who actually wins the seat.

A situation where a party that was massively behind in the pervious election, has a swing of 25% in a by election but just fails to take the seat is more seismic than a marginal seat where a party takes (or retakes) a seat on a swing of 2%.

The bottom line is that most people expected Labour to win the by election - it was the margin of the victory and the level of the swing from SNP to Labour that surprised most pundits, including perhaps the most respected of all in terms of scottish politics John Curtis.

Might give you some credibility if you could spell his name.

As to 'seismic', to me the obvious change in govt policy after Uxbridge, is more politically groundshaking than Labour getting a seat back they held less than 4 years ago.


The discussion about what is seismic in political terms is not something where you can say you're right because you agree with your own definition. In the list of huge swings in my lifetime, Christchurch is the biggest, far higher than Rutherglen, and yet it reverted back at the GE and changed nothing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Might give you some credibility if you could spell his name.

Yawn.

As to 'seismic', to me the obvious change in govt policy after Uxbridge, is more politically groundshaking than Labour getting a seat back they held less than 4 years ago.

A change in the policy that doesn't seem to have shifted the dial on the polling whatsoever - hardly seismic. And given that that party is unlikely to be in government for much more than another year then that 'change in policy' is largely irrelevant.

The discussion about what is seismic in political terms is not something where you can say you're right because you agree with your own definition. In the list of huge swings in my lifetime, Christchurch is the biggest, far higher than Rutherglen, and yet it reverted back at the GE and changed nothing.

Again you are missing the point - there have been many occasions where the electorate have given a licking to the party of government in westminster in a westminster by election, only to return to the fold come general election time. But the SNP aren't in government in westminster are they? I'll say it again - this is the largest swing in a by election against an incumbent party that isn't either the government or official opposition ever. By elections are supposed to be the places where small parties do well against the westminster big boys, not where they see a 20% swing against them.

[Nearly Sane]

Yawn.
A change in the policy that doesn't seem to have shifted the dial on the polling whatsoever - hardly seismic. And given that that party is unlikely to be in government for much more than another year then that 'change in policy' is largely irrelevant.
Again you are missing the point - there have been many occasions where the electorate have given a licking to the party of government in westminster in a westminster by election, only to return to the fold come general election time. But the SNP aren't in government in westminster are they? I'll say it again - this is the largest swing in a by election against an incumbent party that isn't either the government or official opposition ever. By elections are supposed to be the places where small parties do well against the westminster big boys, not where they see a 20% swing against them.

Again you are merely saying you are right because you agree with yourself as to what 'seismic' means here.

As already covered' Seismic' to me seems to be about changing things. Winning a seat that they held less than 4 years ago changes nothing.

[Nearly Sane]

Meanwhile on the eve of the by election, the SNP seem to have been indulging in a bit of internecine strife.


https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,mhairi-black-threat-to-quit-snp-on-eve-of-byelection-in-ultimatum-over-staffer

[ProfessorDavey]

Again you are merely saying you are right because you agree with yourself as to what 'seismic' means here.

Not just me - google 'Rutherglen seismic' and I think you'll find rather a lot of hits.

As already covered' Seismic' to me seems to be about changing things. Winning a seat that they held less than 4 years ago changes nothing.

Which would mean that it could never be used to describe a by election which never actually changes anything other than the MP in a single seat.

If you are unable to see the difference between Labour's teeny, tiny majority in 2017 and last night then I think you need a trip to specsavers.

So just to help you out.

In 2017 Labour won be a mere 265 votes polling just 0.5% more votes than the SNP (37.5 to 35)

Last night Labour won with more than double the votes that the SNP gained (58.6% to 28.6%).

[Nearly Sane]

Not just me - google 'Rutherglen seismic' and I think you'll find rather a lot of hits.
Which would mean that it could never be used to describe a by election which never actually changes anything other than the MP in a single seat.

If you are unable to see the difference between Labour's teeny, tiny majority in 2017 and last night then I think you need a trip to specsavers.

So just to help you out.

In 2017 Labour won be a mere 265 votes polling just 0.5% more votes than the SNP (37.5 to 35)

Last night Labour won with more than double the votes that the SNP gained (58.6% to 28.6%).

Oh look an argumentum ad populum.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh look an argumentum ad populum.

FFS NS - we are talking about an election, you knew the kind of things where the candidate that is the most popular in terms of votes wins. Elections are basically ad populum  by definition.

[Nearly Sane]

FFS NS - we are talking about an election, you knew the kind of things where the candidate that is the most popular in terms of votes wins. Elections are basically ad populum  by definition.

You seem very confused. We're talking about the term 'seismic', and you wanted to justify that by asking me to google because other people agreed with you.

[jeremyp]

Seismic doesn't really mean anything in the context though. There's no scale of election results which defines "seismic" in a certain way. It's just a metaphor.

Is this an important result, politically?

If the result is mirrored at the general election, the SNP will lose some seats in Westminster and Labour will gain some. It means that the SNP is less likely to hold the balance of power. This in turn means the SNP has less leverage to demand an independence referendum. Of course, with the polling as it is, I don't think the SNP holding the balance of power was realistic anyway. If the polling between the Tories and Labour was closer, it would be pretty important, but it isn't, so it's not.

Does it mean anything for the government of Scotland? Maybe, as an indicator that people are unhappy with the SNP, but nothing beyond that. Wghen are the next Scottish parliamentary elections anyway?

[Nearly Sane]

Seismic doesn't really mean anything in the context though. There's no scale of election results which defines "seismic" in a certain way. It's just a metaphor.

Is this an important result, politically?

If the result is mirrored at the general election, the SNP will lose some seats in Westminster and Labour will gain some. It means that the SNP is less likely to hold the balance of power. This in turn means the SNP has less leverage to demand an independence referendum. Of course, with the polling as it is, I don't think the SNP holding the balance of power was realistic anyway. If the polling between the Tories and Labour was closer, it would be pretty important, but it isn't, so it's not.

Does it mean anything for the government of Scotland? Maybe, as an indicator that people are unhappy with the SNP, but nothing beyond that. Wghen are the next Scottish parliamentary elections anyway?

2026, and the polls indicate that any swing to Labour at Westminster elections is currently likely to be much smaller for Holyrood.

[ProfessorDavey]

Seismic doesn't really mean anything in the context though. There's no scale of election results which defines "seismic" in a certain way. It's just a metaphor.

Is this an important result, politically?

If the result is mirrored at the general election, the SNP will lose some seats in Westminster and Labour will gain some. It means that the SNP is less likely to hold the balance of power. This in turn means the SNP has less leverage to demand an independence referendum. Of course, with the polling as it is, I don't think the SNP holding the balance of power was realistic anyway. If the polling between the Tories and Labour was closer, it would be pretty important, but it isn't, so it's not.

Does it mean anything for the government of Scotland? Maybe, as an indicator that people are unhappy with the SNP, but nothing beyond that. Wghen are the next Scottish parliamentary elections anyway?

I think the result is very significant in political terms as it suggests that Labour are very much back in the game in scotland in westminster terms. If Labour are once again seen as the best option north of the border to keep the tories out, as they were up to the 2010 election but haven't been in the past three general elections, then there could be a real tipping point, particularly through the central belt where most of the seats are.

The swing on Thursday was 20% and I don't think anyone expects that to be replicated in a general election, but actually the polls are suggesting a swing which isn't that far off. Most recent polls showing SNP and Labour close to parity at around 35%, while the 2019 general election had SNP on 45% and Labour on just 18% - so that would be 13.5% swing. And that's before any further shift in opinion triggered by this by election is factored in.

Thursday was the worst result by a third party defending a seat in a by election in history.

But, hey ho NS says it isn't seismic, so it can't be.

[ProfessorDavey]

The latest Scottish Westminster election poll from YouGov has Labour taking a clear lead, 38% to 32% (with don't knows removed) over the SNP.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/nov/01/covid-inquiry-boris-johnson-leadership-criticism-oliver-dowden-uk-politics-latest?CMP=share_btn_tw&page=with%3Ablock-654266148f08af73b5ca610f#block-654266148f08af73b5ca610f

For a laugh if you slot this into Electoral Calculus you end up with Labour on 34 seats, up 33 on 2019, with the SNP losing 34 seats to end up on 14 from 2019.