Sadly it was legendary for all the wrong reasons, for observers and psephologists the most interesting thing was that it had a 13% turnout. The campaign itself all rather failed to set the heather alight, even before weather that would have done for a reasonable lump of thermite. For the electorate (and certainly for the activists) the most remarkable thing was probably the rain that never ended.
This had once, in the dim and distant pre-STV days, been a Tory ward and with the inclusion of places such as Dowanhill in the enlarged ward and the on-going Lib Dem Apocalypse they were likely to benefit, particularly given the rather unconservative candidate they ran in the pro-drug-reform Ewan “Cavonia” Hoyle – a perfectly sensible policy but perhaps a rather brave decision here, minister. The Greens did well, as you’d expect in their strongest ward in the city, Stewart Leckie comfortably consolidating the 2nd that the well respected Martha Wardrop achieved in 2007. The SNP had an effective ground campaign and a solid candidate in Ken Andrew, Labour ran them close with the redoubtable Martin McElroy but didn’t quite manage to overhaul the 2007 1st the SNP had in a single seat election.
Afterwards, the SNP rather predictably claimed holding onto 1st in a ward they’d won was a sign of Glasgow being “anxious for change” and equally predictably Labour pointed out that a 13% turnout was no basis on which to do much analysis and it was very wet after all. I think it’s fairly safe to assume that, had the votes fallen the other way, similar claims of “stopping the SNP bulldozer” and turnout would still have been made with the roles reversed. All so very yawnsome.
Probably the most interesting things happened in the “other” category – there was a continuity-BNP candidate, Charlie Ballie, running under the Brittanica banner who was frequently out and about around Byres Road with his “security” and Neil Craig running for UKIP, who had previously stood as the Independent “9% grow party” and blogs here.
And so, to the count itself, and more importantly the transfer pattern which is interesting if you’re me and if it’s not I’d probably go find something else to read.
Still here? Then let the psephological minutiae begin!
Round 1: Britannica got 11 votes,  of which 2 didn’t transfer and of the remaining 9 2 went to the Tories, 3 went to the Lib Dems and the SNP, Greens, UKIP and Labour got 1 each. Which struck me as odd.
The next couple of rounds were predictable, Â redistributing the UKIP votes to no-one or the Tories, half the Lib Dems vote went to the Greens or didn’t transfer, most of the Tory vote didn’t transfer what did split SNP/Green/Labour in that order and then we’re down to splitting up the Green vote.
That went more or less evenly 3 ways – 208 didn’t transfer, 212 went to the SNP and 219 went to Labour, which I thought was interesting but not really sure what to draw from it. It’d be interesting (would it, Aidan? Would it really?) to see if the Green votes that didn’t transfer were the Lib Dem / Tory transfers in.
#1 by Indy on November 23, 2011 - 11:27 am
Funnily enough that’s exactly what I thought was odd as well. We are talking about tiny numbers obviously but why would the Lib Dems be the most popular second choice for BNP voters? Has to just be random, as it makes no sense.
I also reclon you are right about the Green votes that did not transfer but how would we know?
#2 by Jon on November 23, 2011 - 11:36 am
Ah, I thought this was going to be about the 1982 by-election when Woy Jenkins won for the SDP in Hillhead. Gerry “threaten to sue the Lib Dems and turn their majority of 2 into one of 23,000” Malone lost it for the Tories. I was hoping at least for a comedy reference to Pastor Jack Glass (388 votes on an anti-Papal visit ticket), or the legendary Bill Boakes ( “Public Safety Democratic Monarchist White Resident”) who got a staggering 5 votes (him and his family, presumably).
As a by-election it had all the ingredients.
#3 by James on November 23, 2011 - 11:43 am
Epic. That’d make a lovely post. Guest posts about historic byelections would always be welcome.
#4 by Tearlach on November 23, 2011 - 7:19 pm
Ah the 82 by-election. My abiding memory is a group of Glasgow Uni students standing at the back of the hustings chanting “Come on Woy – say Raith Rovers” until they were ejected. Class.
#5 by GMcM on November 23, 2011 - 12:32 pm
The only thing I was able to take from the result was this:
The SNP gained 50% more Tory second preferences than Labour which doesn’t surprise me and also that regardless of that the SNP won the election because of first preferences.
For most supporters of other parties (other than Tories) they see no discernable difference between Labour and the SNP and so will give second preferences very evenly. The Tory voters are far more likely to vote SNP than Labour.
The Greens also benefitted from greater Tory 2nd preferences than Labour – this may come down to personal votes for the candidate or perhaps that the Greens managed to create some electoral room for themselves and distance themselves from Labour and the SNP (which they have done well in the last year I feel).
With smaller numbers comes less reliability in any conclusion drawn from them so I could be way off the mark.
I would’ve thought the SNP would win this seat more comfortably as I feel with the position they are in they could more easily attract student voters from Lib Dems (not to say that all voters in Hillhead are students) than Labour.
Again with such a low turnout there is no guarantee that any conclusion is accurate.
#6 by Erchie on November 23, 2011 - 2:56 pm
G
The trouble is that your analysis ignores Labour voters, or rather, former Labour voters, who gave their first preference to the SNP
One of the stories told ABOUT THE MAY ELECTION WAS THAT THE SNP GAINED MERELY FORMER LIBDEMS. WHAT APPEARS TO (excuse caps) have been the case is that Labur Voters went SNP and the LibDems splut between SNP and Labour
No reason to suppose those former Labour voters are heading back to that party
What IS interesting is that the Tories ren’t supporting the LibDems in great number as 2nd choice
In any case, 2nd preferences can be aa tactical thing, “I don’t like X, but I despise Y more so that I will give that vote to X instead”
Like I might go SNP, GREEN, even though Green’s annoy me sometimes (my own councillor being a case in point) but I’d vote GREEN rather than LibDem.
#7 by GMcM on November 23, 2011 - 3:29 pm
A couple of points erchie.
The breakdown I was referring to was in 2nd preferences and I wasn’t talking about Lib Dems in general but students who voted Lib Dem previously.
20% of Labour voters in May 2010 voted SNP in May 2011 and the LDs did not split evenly. SNP gained 30+% ex-LDs while Labour gained 17% ex-LDs.
Also we cannot draw any conclusions about Tory second preferences going/not going to LDs as the LDs fell out before the Tories. It is impossible from the info we have to draw any conclusions about movement of preferences between Tories and LDs in this by-election.
#8 by Iain Menzies on November 23, 2011 - 4:28 pm
as a tory voter/supporter/sometime campaigner/one time member….i personally would vote tommy sheridan before i would vote lib dem.
hell theres a decent chance i would vote for stalin if he was still around (and bothered with elections) before i would vote for the lib dems.
and i know im not alone in thinking like this in tory ranks.
#9 by Richard Laird on November 23, 2011 - 2:42 pm
“The SNP had an effective ground campaign and a solid candidate in Ken Andrew, Labour ran them close with the redoubtable Martin McElroy but didn’t quite manage to overhaul the 2007 1st the SNP had in a single seat election.”
In 2007, the SNP didn’t come first; Labour did: the two Labour candidates polled 2,272 first preferences betwen them, while the sole SNP candidate won 1,899.
#10 by Aidan on November 23, 2011 - 2:52 pm
That’s true, but I’m not sure it’s legitimate to aggregate the Labour vote that way.
#11 by Richard Laird on November 23, 2011 - 3:25 pm
You don’t think it’s legitimate to aggregate the votes of candidates standing for the same party in the same ward? Taking your approach, the SNP came first in the Shettleston ward because 1,896 voters put John McLaughlin first, despite 4,616 voters choosing a Labour candidate. Surely that isn’t right?
#12 by Aidan on November 23, 2011 - 5:12 pm
I see where you’re saying but I’m not sure it’s possible to read across from multi-member ward numbers to individuals in that way, in particular for the reasons GMcM points out below.
There’s clearly still some getting used to for describing the situation in these by-elections, should probably see how Irish commentators do it…
#13 by GMcM on November 23, 2011 - 3:01 pm
The main thing I would say about this is that this was an SNP hold. I think it plays a part in things when people know who was the previous holder of the seat.
A couple of examples for you if you want to check them:
Baillieston in 2008 there were 2 by-elections within a couple of months of each other – the first was to replace an SNP counciloor and the SNP held; the next was to replace a Labour councillor and Labour held.
Also if you look at the two by-elections in Coatbridge North and Glenboig you see a similar pattern. In 2007 to replace John Wilson the vote was much closer than the more recent by-election. Labour won from the SNP in 2007 by-election but when replacing Tony Clarke this year Labour won comfortably.
#14 by Barbarian on November 23, 2011 - 7:36 pm
When it comes to parliamentary seats, it doesn’t how many votes you get, as long as you win.
Then, as the article points out, all sides will take “positives” from the result, but the only one really is if you win.
Council elections are not really a true indicator of national trends, at least not where I live. It boils down to the individual councillors, which baffles me since as well as having some excellent councillors, there are also a few numpties out there who manage to retain their seat time after time.