An example of such a seat is Oxford West and Abingdon (OXWAB), with a student population of around 8,000. In the 2005 general election, the incumbent, Dr Evan Harris (Lib Dem) retained the seat comfortably, with 24,336 votes compared to his closest rival Amanda McLean (Con) who polled 16,653. In the 2010 election, the Conservatives captured the seat narrowly, even though the final result does not fit perfectly with the changes in national support for the respective parties. In 2010 Evan Harris gained 23,730 votes- just 606 votes less than 5 years previously, but still despite the fact that nationally the Liberal Democrats polled 2% higher than in 2005. He was narrowly edged out by Nicola Blackwood (Con) who gained 23,906 votes. The Conservatives had gained an impressive 7,253 in OXWAB since 2005, despite the fact that nationally they only improved their share of the vote narrowly, up from 32.4% in 05, to 36.1%. It has to be asked where did the extra 7,253 votes come from? Given that UKIP gained 723 extra votes in 2010, many of which would come from traditional conservatives disgruntled with the Tory party’s move to the left, we could argue that the Conservatives needed to gain more like 7,750 votes.
In OXWAB in 2010, the Liberal Democrats ran a fierce campaign to encourage “progressives” – specifically supporters of the Labour Party and the Green Party (which has a potentially very high but largely unrealised level of local support given their 1st position polling at the – proportionally elected - European elections in Oxford in the year before). Despite this, the Labour Party’s only lost 2,726 votes in the constituency compared to 2005, whilst the Greens lost 907 votes. However, the Liberal Democrat’s courting of tactical “Green” votes in OXWAB could be seen as something of a mistake. Based on my experience of the Green Party in this constituency, it is certainly not the case that all of those people who backed the Greens in 2005 but did not in 2010 would have backed the Lib Dems. The Green Party has a very diverse support base, and although it is true that some of the 907 votes the Greens lost in 2010 would have gone to the Lib Dems, it is equally possible that some would have gone to the Tories, many of the Green’s supporters in this constituency being of a socially conservative background. Controversy surrounding Chris Goodall’s support of Nuclear Power may have lost him some “deep green” votes, but it is equally likely that he would have gained votes for the same reason. It would probably be safe to assume that the Conservatives would have gained between 200-300 of the lost Green votes in OXWAB, but this certainly leaves them with around 7,500 missing votes. Many of the 2,726 Labour voters would have backed the Lib Dem’s tactically, but a fair number would have simply abstained (a tradition of old Labour supporters who prefer not to betray their party). It is unreasonable to argue that more than 1,500 of the Labour votes would have backed the Tories, leaving them with another 6,000 votes or so to be found. It is possible that the Tories gained many of the 606 votes that Dr Harris lost, especially given the fact that many Lib Dem’s in the constituency voted Tory prior to 1997- as can be induced from analysis of prior results- or just generally knowing the area. Possibly 500 of these would have voted Tory- leaving them with 5,500 to find.
The turnout did increase by 3,880, but it would be very wrong to assume that all of these “new” voters voted Conservative. Indeed many would have voted because of the close nature of the campaign, whereas in 2005 the result seemed all but guaranteed for Evan Harris. However, the fact that a greater number of votes cast seems to indicate higher overall turnout is in fact an illusion, since turnout as a percentage of the electorate (which clearly grew substantially) actually fell between 2005 and 2010, down from 65.6% to 65.3%- which is very odd considering that nationally the turnout was up from 61.3% in 2005, to 65.1%- a trend which can be explained both by the close nature of the national campaign, raising the prospect of a hung parliament; and by the televised leaders debates which commentators thought significantly boosted public interest in the election.
The election of a Conservative Candidate in OXWAB (2010) is and will remain a mystery for many years to come. In the election campaign (as private sources in senior positions within all the campaigns have told me) all “progressive parties”- the Liberal Democrats, Greens, and Labour, were absolutely confident that Dr Evan Harris’ enormous majority could not possibly be fully eroded and his vote share would hold up very strongly given the inherently social-democratic nature of the Oxford electorate and the strong student population (who had until recently strongly tended to support the Liberal Democrats). Dr Harris was subject to a smear campaign by the Christian right, on his support for euthanasia and abortion, and by an Animal Rights campaigner for his support for medical research using Animals, yet these did not seem to be major factors- indeed the “Animal Protection” candidate- Keith Mann, received a paltry 143 votes, and Dr Harris vote did indeed hold up, as all the progressives had privately know it would.
The first question is where UKIP’s 723 votes came from. Oxford West and Abingdon is probably one of the most “intelligent” constituencies in the country, if not the most. It has a high population of academics, business people, professional public sector workers, and so on. What I am saying is that it is implausible to argue that UKIP’s 723 votes came from, for instance, the Greens- (UKIP deny climate change), or from Labour, or from the Lib Dems. At least 500 or these would have come from one of two sources- either the Tories, or form the 3,880 “new” voters who did not vote in 2005. Either way, less votes are available to explain where Nicola Blackwood got the extra 7,253 votes from. Less assume, just for the point of argument, no matter how ridiculous it may sound, that all of UKIP’s extra 723 votes came from the 907 votes the Green Party lost. Now obviously this assumption carries not even the shred of possibility, but I am just trying to demonstrate how odd Blackwood’s victory was. Now let’s assume that the other 184 votes the Greens lost went to the Conservatives- alternatively we would assume that the Conservatives got all of the 907 votes the Greens lost, but then we have to explain the 723 votes that UKIP gained, which would mostly come from disgruntled 2005 Tory voters, or from the 3,880 new voters, so we would be back to square one. Either way, the Conservatives would end up with 184 votes from the Greens towards there target of 7,253. Whoopee! Only 7,069 to go. It seems within the realms of possibility that the Conservatives might have gained many of the 606 votes the Liberal Democrat Dr Evan Harris lost- let’s say they got every single one. Still, 6,463 to go!
Until we proceed, let’s just take a look at the actual votes in 2005 and 2010.
2010:
Conservative – Nicola Blackwood – 23,906
Liberal Democrat – Evan Harris – 23,730
Labour – Richard Stevens – 5,999
UKIP – Paul Williams – 1,518
Green – Chris Goodall – 1,184
Animal Protection – Keith Mann – 143
(Turnout – 56,480)
2005:
Liberal Democrat – Evan Harris – 24,336
Conservative – Amanda McLean – 16,653
Labour – Antonia Bance – 8,725
Green – Tom Lines – 2,091
UKIP – Marcus Watney – 795
(Turnout – 52,600)
We can summarise the problem like this:
The Conservatives won 7,253 more votes. Where did they come from?
How many more votes were available?
1. 3,880 “new/extra” votes not cast in 2005.
2. 606 lost Liberal Democrat votes.
3. 2,726 lost Labour votes.
4. 907 lost Green votes.
5. -723 gained UKIP votes.
6. -143 gained Animal Protection votes.
7. That’s a total “pool” of extra potential Tory votes of 7,253. That’s not to say that all of the lost votes went directly to the Tories, for instance, the Greens might have gained 200 of the lost Lib Dem votes, but lost an extra 200 to the Tories. Another likely scenario is that many of the lost 2,726 Labour votes would have gone to the Lib Dems, but there would have been another 2,726 lost Lib Dem votes concealed by the tactical voting of the Labour voters for Dr Harris.
Unfortunately, the problem does not stop here. Let’s make some reasonable assumptions about how the votes might have changed hands. Assume the lost 907 Green votes went to the Lib Dems as a tactical vote to “keep the Tories out”; again, the same explanation could be applied to the 2,726 lost Labour votes, giving the Liberals an even bigger majority at the start – up from 24,336 to 27,969. As for the Animal Protection votes, I will make no assumption since it is a very specific issue, and Keith Mann only received 143 votes so I will assume these are from various sources. Now let’s assume that UKIP’s extra 723 votes came from the Tories, now all parties are dealt with and only the Liberal Democrats and the Tories are left in the race with 27,969 and 15,930 respectively. This does not seem altogether unreasonable. Sure, some Labour would have voted Tory, and some UKIP for Lib Dem, but these may cancel out. Just to be cautious, let’s say I got it wrong, and after you take out the votes transferred away from smaller parties (Labour, Green, UKIP) the Liberals have 1,969 less than expected (26,000) and the Tories have 17,899 as a result. Then you factor in the changes in the national popularity of both parties between 2005 and 2010. With the Lib Dems, they are up from 22% to 23%. The Lib Dems might be expected to get around 27,000 on a uniform swing, and the Tories are up from 32.4% to 36.1% they might be expected to win 20,000. The fact that we didn’t have the expected 7,000 majority is down to local issues (national issues being reflected in the headline national swing which I have already included). In other words around 3,500 Liberal Democrat votes must have swung to the Tories for local reasons – almost certainly as a result of the smear campaign against Dr Harris over Christian moral issues by an Anglican Bishop and Keith Mann’s leaflet brandishing him as “Dr Death” for his support of Animal research. That would pretty much fit with the end result. (Conservative – Nicola Blackwood – 23,906; Liberal Democrat – Evan Harris – 23,730)
What we have concluded is that a seemingly ultra safe seat was captured in an unexpected fashion by Nicola Blackwood (an evangelical Conservative Christian candidate), on a swing of 3,500 “moral majority” type votes. That’s truly shocking – and slightly unbelievable.
No comments:
Post a Comment