Glasgow East by-election

[Verily]

Scottish Labour by-election record 1997 - 2007
February 2nd 2006: Dunfermline and West Fife: Lib Dem GAIN Lab -17%
September 29th 2005: Livingston: Lab HOLD Lab -10%
December 21st 2000: Falkirk West: Lab HOLD Lab -16%
November 23rd 2000: Glasgow, Anniesland: Lab HOLD Lab -10%
September 23rd 1999: Hamilton South: Lab HOLD Lab -29%
November 6th 1997: Paisley South: Lab HOLD Lab -13%

Average Labour Change: -16%

Based on those figures irt should be a labour hold.

Glasgow Govan, which is certainly more comparable, tells a different story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Govan_by-election%2C_1988

Interestingly, the betting markets seem to have decided that the SNP are the favorites ()

[Verily]

Davena Rankin, former candidate for Glasgow South has been selected for the Conservatives in Glasgow East. Here union background (she's pretty high up within UNISON; chairs the Scottish Women's Committee and is Branch Secretary of the GCU Branch etc) may have helped her here.

She won't win of course but all the best to her.

What are her chances for a third place?

I would say pretty good. I think Lib Dems are much more likely to vote tactically for the SNP than Conservatives, especially the sorts of both you might find in Glasgow East.

[Verily]

The SNP candidate is local councillor John Mason. Ex-MSP Frances Curran will stand for the SSP and get a derisory vote. Solidarity is not standing a candidate. The Liberals Democrats are running Ian Robertson; I don't know anything about him. He's probably just a paper candidate.

[Verily]

Could somebody explain why some (not necessarily on here) are talking about a possible SNP gain? Or did I misunderstand?

They are talking about it being possible because Scottish Labour's by-election record is awful and has been for at least sixty years (maybe even longer; can't quite remember).

And because the SNP has managed gains on gigantic swings in the past, similar to what you might have expected from the Lib Dems against Labour in 2003-2005 or against the Conservatives 1995-1997. Of course, the SNP has been very inconsistent about such gains, but they tend to come when Labour is very unpopular, like right now.

[Verily]

For those keeping score at home, MSP Margaret Curran will be the Labour candidate. Which makes two Currans on the ballot, an amusing but probably irrelevant event.

Solidarity is running Tricia Leish, and the Greens are running Eileen Duke. Both are no-names.

[Verily]

For those keeping score at home, MSP Margaret Curran will be the Labour candidate. Which makes two Currans on the ballot, an amusing but probably irrelevant event.

They are in the same family or they only have the same family name?

Unrelated as far as I know. They were also both in the Scottish Parliament (for their respective parties) until Frances Curran lost re-election in the meltdown of the SSP in 2007.

[Verily]

Hamish Howitt has submitted his nomination papers even before he loses in Haltemprice and Howden tomorrow. (He's the anti-smoking bans campaigner.) There will also be an independent, Chris Creighton, on the ballot; I've no idea who he is. Also, the SSP will be running the extra description "Scottish Socialist Party (Abolish Council Tax)".

[Verily]

ICM poll: Lab 47, SNP 33, LDem 9, Con 7, Oth. 4

The record of constituency polls is poor, the record of by-election polls is worse and I don't see this as being an easy area to poll under any circumstances. So treat wi' a salt mine or three.

It looks better than the other poll with regard to the Tory and Lib Dem shares, but has probably been designed to look that way anyway. It's got the betting folk stirred a little which is predictable.

But yes, disregard.

Someone did an interesting analysis of ICM's past vote recall for the poll which suggested that could be overwhelmingly skewing the poll to Labour if a lot of people are remembering their (more recent) Holyrood vote instead of their Westminster vote. Reweighted to account for both evenly, the poll gave Lab 43, SNP 41 (LD 10, Con 4).

[Verily]

Just back from Glasgow East.

Oh the things I wish I could tell you

Rumors are that postal turnout is somewhere between extremely and extraordinarily low (for the average const., that is, not Glasgow East specifically).

[Verily]

If that wasn't the case it'd be a surprise...

True, but would you expect (total) turnout to be as low as 20-25%? That's the current estimate.

[Verily]

Well hello...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4380787.ece

Good news if it holds.

Wouldn't high turnout (or, at least, exceptionally high turnout) be good for Labour? I would imagine the SNP want turnout to be just high enough that they get all of the angry people out to vote but not so high that the characteristically disinclined to vote urban Labour supporters start showing up.

[Verily]

What a scorcher of a day. This is election weather.

Election weather for us is certainly not scorching.

It's Scotland. Scorching means it might have broken 70 F.

Polls have closed. The result is expected around 1 a.m. BST (three hours from now).

[Verily]

Postal vote, as reported by Labour insiders, is 46 Lab, 42 SNP, 12 LD/Con/Other.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/2455991/Glasgow-East-by-election-polling-suggests-photo-finish.html

[Verily]

The BBC and Guardian seem to be suggesting the SNP have won it.

[Verily]

Official turnout is 42.25% (!!!)

[Verily]

LibDems may have come fifth, may have lost their deposit.

And they were only 5% behind the SNP in 2005. Odd.

Not odd at all. The LD vote was probably the most inclined to be squeezed by the SNP. And, while loyal Labour voters I can sort of see taking up Scottish pride against Labour, I can't see them doing the same to switch to the LDs (which is why the LDs didn't seriously contest the seat).

[Verily]

SNP majority of 354 before the recount.

[Verily]

Forgive me for asking, but what are the requirements for a recount. While close, 354 seems unlikely to be overturned given the number of voters?

Candidates request recounts for various reasons, and they are confirmed or denies basically just on merit. The recount might be because of the two Currans (to check to make sure no Margaret votes were put in with the Frances votes or vice versa), or because one or more candidates were very close to retaining their deposits (i.e. getting 5% of the vote). Or the returning officer might have decided that 354 was close enough to allow a recount.

[Verily]

SNP wins. Recount increased their majority.

[Verily]

J Mason (SNP): 11,277
M Curran (Lab): 10,912
D Rankin (Con): 1,639
I Robertson (LD): 915
F Curran (SSP): 555
T McLeish (Sol): 512
E Duke (Grn): 232
C Creighton (Ind): 67
H Howitt (F4C): 65

So it could well have been Curran confusion.

Congrats to the SNP, and a good result, even if the squeeze on the LDs and the lost deposit are unfortunate (especially given what a good candidate Robertson was; hopefully he gets involved in Glasgow North, where the LDs can actually win things).

[Verily]

SNP majority smaller than the vote for the other Curran. Read into that whatever you like.

Anyway. We'll get it back next General Election. Which doesn't change the fact that it's an awful, awful, awful result and I stand by what I wrote earlier in the night; an indication of general government woes, economic worries, the popularity of the SNP government at Holyrood and the state of flux the Scottish Labour Party was in anyway it might well be, there's something else at work here. Might well be time for lessons to be learned, fourty years later than they should have been.

Anyway. I won't be buying a newspaper until Monday at least.

Given the high turnout, isn't it at least possible that the SNP will actually manage to hang on in a GE?

I also sense the possibility that this is a bit of a premonition for a major shift in Glasgow politics specifically away from Labour. Who, after all, have had an iron grip on the city for ages, but Glasgow is still the sh*thole of Scotland. Might be some resentment that maybe the SNP's "Scotland first" attitude is better for Glasgow, or at least untested whereas Labour might be seen to have not helped.

[Verily]

Just realsied that I wrote "Llafur" instead of Labour a few itimes here. Hah. I need lsesleep then.

Is "Llafur" Welsh for "Labour"?

[Verily]

Reports were, during the campaign, that it was Easterhouse which swung very strongly from Labour to the SNP. But that doesn't make it the case, of course.

[Verily]

Yeah, it's the both-candidates-bases-in-Baillieston thing that made me wonder. Of course if the original Labour candidate (a Shettleston cllr. IIRC) hadn't dropped out it'd be more obvious who did well where.

What I can tell you is that Labour were comfortably ahead until after 5pm. For once it did not benefit from the post rush-hour vote. In fact it was quite the opposite.

Interesting; would I be wrong in assuming that that might point to an age gap [qm]. Pensioners for Curran, younger to middle aged people for Mason [qm].

I wouldn't be surprised, the younger voters being less set in the way of voting Labour.