Rochester & Strood by-election

[Uncle Leo]

A really interesting battle this. The betting has already flip-flopped a couple of times, with UKIP opening up as favourites, then the Conservatives being backed in, before a Survation poll put UKIP well in front. Betting wise though, the tide is slowly ebbing towards the boys in blue again, possibly helped by them firing all their big guns at this Kent constituency.

How do we see this going? I've backed the Conservatives, albeit at a shorter price than they are now :dim:

Decision day is November 20th...

 

[callan]

A really interesting battle this. The betting has already flip-flopped a couple of times, with UKIP opening up as favourites, then the Conservatives being backed in, before a Survation poll put UKIP well in front. Betting wise though, the tide is slowly ebbing towards the boys in blue again, possibly helped by them firing all their big guns at this Kent constituency.

How do we see this going? I've backed the Conservatives, albeit at a shorter price than they are now :dim:

Decision day is November 20th...

If as many many mention the tories and ukip vote split gives us Labour, is there any likely hood of that happening here?

What odds am I likely to get on a Labour victory?

 

[Uncle Leo]

If as many many mention the tories and ukip vote split gives us Labour, is there any likely hood of that happening here?

What odds am I likely to get on a Labour victory?

Pretty much name your price! They're around 28/1 at the moment.

 

[callan]

Pretty much name your price! They're around 28/1 at the moment.

Surprised at that, thought they would be a lot shorter odds considering they have previously held the seat.

 

[Napster]

big turnout last time, and a massive swing towards Tory. Cant see Labour or Lib Dem making any impression.

Very very close call. But I'm edging to Tory.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Surprised at that, thought they would be a lot shorter odds considering they have previously held the seat.

Clearly they're leaving the Tories a free run.I suspect many Labour party voters will hold their noses and vote Tory to keep UKIP out.

 

[callan]

Clearly they're leaving the Tories a free run.I suspect many Labour party voters will hold their noses and vote Tory to keep UKIP out.

Why would they want to do that?

 

[Jam_Man]

Why would they want to do that?

Because they dont want UKIP in?

Ive never voted Conservative in my life, but if UKIP were in anyway close Id vote for them.

 

[londonblue]

Why would they want to do that?

Because of the smell?

 

[callan]

Because they dont want UKIP in?

Ive never voted Conservative in my life, but if UKIP were in anyway close Id vote for them.

Fair enough...wouldn't you prefer that your party of choice were actually trying to win though?

If they aren't then not sure how deserving of a vote they are.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Fair enough...wouldn't you prefer that your party of choice were actually trying to win though?

If they aren't then not sure how deserving of a vote they are.

The candidate concerned (Labour in R&S or a Tory in, say, South Wales) will still be putting the effort in, but without loads of financial support from central office. If they put up a good fight and give a decent account of themselves, there is always a chance of getting selected for a more winnable seat next time around.

 

[callan]

The candidate concerned (Labour in R&S or a Tory in, say, South Wales) will still be putting the effort in, but without loads of financial support from central office. If they put up a good fight and give a decent account of themselves, there is always a chance of getting selected for a more winnable seat next time around.

I get that, but that would beg the question why Labour aren't putting the effort in financially or with support from central office.

If the Tory vote is split as the polls suggest why aren't they giving this one a go?

If 2010 is anything to go by, surely they would have a chance?


General Election 2010: Rochester and Strood[9]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Mark Reckless 23,604 49.2 +6.6
Labour Teresa Murray 13,651 28.5 −13.7
Liberal Democrat Geoff Juby 7,800 16.3 +3.9
English Democrats Ron Sands 2,182 4.5 N/A
Green Simon Marchant 734 1.5 N/A
Majority 9,953 20.7
Turnout 47,971 64.9 +2.5
Conservative hold Swing +9.8

 

[dloman]

I get that, but that would beg the question why Labour aren't putting the effort in financially or with support from central office.

If the Tory vote is split as the polls suggest why aren't they giving this one a go?

If 2010 is anything to go by, surely they would have a chance?


General Election 2010: Rochester and Strood[9]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Mark Reckless 23,604 49.2 +6.6
Labour Teresa Murray 13,651 28.5 −13.7
Liberal Democrat Geoff Juby 7,800 16.3 +3.9
English Democrats Ron Sands 2,182 4.5 N/A
Green Simon Marchant 734 1.5 N/A
Majority 9,953 20.7
Turnout 47,971 64.9 +2.5
Conservative hold Swing +9.8

I think you are assuming that the UKIP vote is pretty much all coming from Conservative supporters. I believe that the Labour vote could also take a battering from UKIP with the LibDems disintegrating.

 

[callan]

I think you are assuming that the UKIP vote is pretty much all coming from Conservative supporters. I believe that the Labour vote could also take a battering from UKIP with the LibDems disintegrating.

You could be right, the Labour vote was non existent in the recent clacton by election dropping by over six and a half thousand against the 2010 GE result, along with the Lib dems who were 5000 votes down on their 2010 result.

Those votes must have gone somewhere....or the labour / Lib Dem voters simply failed to show up (not that it would have made any difference if they had).

The combined conservative / UKIP vote was just under 30,000 against against 22000 polled in 2010 (UKIP did not stand) by the Conservatives so although there were defections from Conservative to UKIP, one could argue that the extra 8,000 votes came from Labour and the Lib dems which would paint a pretty bleak picture for them IF correct.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I get that, but that would beg the question why Labour aren't putting the effort in financially or with support from central office.

If the Tory vote is split as the polls suggest why aren't they giving this one a go?

If 2010 is anything to go by, surely they would have a chance?


General Election 2010: Rochester and Strood[9]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Mark Reckless 23,604 49.2 +6.6
Labour Teresa Murray 13,651 28.5 −13.7
Liberal Democrat Geoff Juby 7,800 16.3 +3.9
English Democrats Ron Sands 2,182 4.5 N/A
Green Simon Marchant 734 1.5 N/A
Majority 9,953 20.7
Turnout 47,971 64.9 +2.5
Conservative hold Swing +9.8

While its a matter of record that Labour won the seat three times under Blair, Labour's strategy this time round is to go for 35% of the vote in the G/E,which will give them a narrow win.
Seats like R and S aren't remotely winnable under that formula.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Clearly they're leaving the Tories a free run.I suspect many Labour party voters will hold their noses and vote Tory to keep UKIP out.

No, in a constituency like this the swing will probably be more Labour and Lib Dem to UKIP than Tory to UKIP. UKIP are the party of the working class.

While its a matter of record that Labour won the seat three times under Blair, Labour's strategy this time round is to go for 35% of the vote in the G/E,which will give them a narrow win.
Seats like R and S aren't remotely winnable under that formula.

It's an utterly bizarre strategy, particularly with the West Lothian question looming large. It's not even as if they're writing them off as they have particularly lurched to the left, instead they're just being inept in the comfort that 35% will see them home - providing Scottish MPs can still vote on English matters.

 

[Benfleet A1]

I despise tactical voting and anyone who takes part in it. What's the point of voting for what you don't really want? I find it more cowardly than tactical.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I despise tactical voting and anyone who takes part in it. What's the point of voting for what you don't really want? I find it more cowardly than tactical.

Because sometimes voting against something can be more effective than voting for something.

 

[Jam_Man]

Fair enough...wouldn't you prefer that your party of choice were actually trying to win though?

If they aren't then not sure how deserving of a vote they are.

If there was a party I wanted in then yes Id vote for them, but in an election where UKIP had a chance of getting in Id vote for any party to keep them out.

I despise tactical voting and anyone who takes part in it. What's the point of voting for what you don't really want? I find it more cowardly than tactical.

Why?

People have the right to choose who they dont want in power just as much as choosing who they do.

Id rather vote for a party that I dont really want than allow a party I definitely dont want to get in power.

I dont care a lot for politics, labour/tories dont really do anything for me, but I 100% dont want UKIP.

All academic though as they wont win here.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Latest poll - and worth noting perhaps that it was funded by a UKIP donor - has the purple people 13pts clear of the blues.