UKIP and the Eastleigh by election - results now in

[WeX]

Eastleigh was not a target seat of the conservatives. Its been Lib Dem for a very long time and this is why it remained Lib Dem. The cons have a bloody nose but even Thatcher lost almost all of the by elections she fought while PM, so its not a litmus test for the countries intentions come general election time. The party that faired the worst was Labour, they should have picked up the protest votes but this simply didn't happen. Miliband should be worried as this election should have been an easy 2nd and a tough first for him, but to come 4th behind a party that has no MP's goes to show how badly Labour are seen by the population.

 

Labour should ditch Miliband and get on with representing the working population. No one out there is at the moment.

[gnvqsos]

Labour never do well around there. Labour have no chance in consituencies like Eastleigh.

Even in 1997, their best ever year, they only managed 25%. Eastleigh is really a safe Tory seat that the Libs have managed to snatch from their grasp a bit like Bermondsey, which used to be a safe Labour seat but was taken by the Libs in 1982 in a by election but which they have kept ever since. Or even Berwick, which Liberal Alan Beith won in a by election over the Tory by 50 votes in 1973 but but has kept ever since.

 

Spot on- the Lib dems(MPs) are good at retaining seats because they and the local councillors work very hard to represent voters.

[callippo]

Eastleigh was very much of a target seat for the Conservatives, it was target #5 of Lib held seats in the 2010 general election. You can't make out that Labour did worse than the Tories when they have never held the seat and have never had any pretensions of taking it, when their vote held up despite many of their voters voting UKIP this time.

 

Thatcher lost by elections, but one of the features of her governments was that they always got them back in the next general election. I doubt many people would put money on the Tories to take Eastleigh next time. They should have recaptured it in 2010. It was the Tories not winning key targets like Eastleigh that meant that they didn't get a majority.

[vinyl]

Eastleigh was very much of a target seat for the Conservatives, it was target #5 of Lib held seats in the 2010 general election. You can't make out that Labour did worse than the Tories when they have never held the seat and have never had any pretensions of taking it, when their vote held up despite many of their voters voting UKIP this time.

 

Thatcher lost by elections, but one of the features of her governments was that they always got them back in the next general election. I doubt many people would put money on the Tories to take Eastleigh next time. They should have recaptured it in 2010. It was the Tories not winning key targets like Eastleigh that meant that they didn't get a majority.

 

But hardly re-assuring for Labour either when a party that only polled 1900 votes last time round by-passed Labour and polled almost 3 times the vote of their candidate.

 

This is the 2010 result.

 

Chris Huhne Liberal Democrat 24,966 46.5 +8.2

Maria Hutchings Conservative 21,102 39.3 +2.1

Leo Barraclough Labour 5,153 9.6 -11.5

Ray Finch UK Independence Party 1,933 3.6 +0.2

 

Labour didn't pull back any of the 11.5% of the vote they lost in 2010

[SHYTOT]

The question must be as to why our doctors prefer to find work abroad when foreign doctors are attracted to work here.

 

Perhaps the question should be "Why can't the foreign doctors who come here get jobs in the countries where UK trained doctors go?"

 

I would say that the doctors trained in the UK are better trained doctors than ones from Bangladesh. So UK trained doctors have more choice of where they work and can choose Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA.

Doctors trained in Bangladesh probably think anywhere is better than Bangladesh and will work anywhere that will take them.

[wednesday1]

Eastleigh was not a target seat of the conservatives. Its been Lib Dem for a very long time and this is why it remained Lib Dem. The cons have a bloody nose but even Thatcher lost almost all of the by elections she fought while PM, so its not a litmus test for the countries intentions come general election time. The party that faired the worst was Labour, they should have picked up the protest votes but this simply didn't happen. Miliband should be worried as this election should have been an easy 2nd and a tough first for him, but to come 4th behind a party that has no MP's goes to show how badly Labour are seen by the population.

 

Labour should ditch Miliband and get on with representing the working population. No one out there is at the moment.

 

 

Lol!!! Eastleigh was no 40 on the Cons hit list, it is a seat that they would like to take easiliy if they were ever to get a majority in their own right again, thankfully it will never happen. Eastleigh was at around 300th in Labours target seats. The seat was a safe Tory seat until the Libs took it from them in the '80's - nice try old boy;)

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2013 at 21:18 ----------

 

But hardly re-assuring for Labour either when a party that only polled 1900 votes last time round by-passed Labour and polled almost 3 times the vote of their candidate.

 

This is the 2010 result.

 

Chris Huhne Liberal Democrat 24,966 46.5 +8.2

Maria Hutchings Conservative 21,102 39.3 +2.1

Leo Barraclough Labour 5,153 9.6 -11.5

Ray Finch UK Independence Party 1,933 3.6 +0.2

 

Labour didn't pull back any of the 11.5% of the vote they lost in 2010

 

Labour polled slightly higher than last time, they won the 2005 General election when they got a similar % as this. Not trying to make out it is great for Labour, It would have been a disaster for the Lib Dems if they had lost.Their vote was down around 22% (i think) on the last GE. Without the UKIP effect I think the Cons would have taken it back.

 

It was a disaster for the Lib Dems and Cons and disappointing for Labour. The only winners were UKIP. Cameron and the Cons must really be quaking in their boots now with UKIP eating so heavily into their vote.

[I1L2T3]

Eastleigh was a bloody nose for the Tories and Labour. Worse for the Tories of course but for both parties it was pretty much a disaster.

 

UKIP is suddenly a massive problem for them both. There's life in the LibDems yet too and I'm happy to admit I've talked them down a bit too much.

 

The role of the LibDems in the next few years has suddenly become very much clearer. For a lot of people who want us to remain in the EU the LibDems are going to be a major force in the debate.

[callippo]

Eastleigh was a bloody nose for the Tories and Labour. Worse for the Tories of course but for both parties it was pretty much a disaster.

 

 

much worse for the Tories. It's one of their seats of the type they need if they are going to govern. And yet they haven't got it.

[I1L2T3]

much worse for the Tories. It's one of their seats of the type they need if they are going to govern. And yet they haven't got it.

 

Rotherham should be a wake-up call for Labour too.

 

UKIP have the capability to wreak havoc all over the country.

[El Cid]

 

Labour polled slightly higher than last time, they won the 2005 General election when they got a similar % as this. Not trying to make out it is great for Labour, It would have been a disaster for the Lib Dems if they had lost.

 

That is a load of rubbish.

 

In 2005 Labour got 20.6% of the vote.

This time Labour got 9.82% of the vote.