Quote Originally Posted by Gofer Blue View Post
Take a closer look at the actual numbers of votes cast in these by-elections and compare these with votes cast in the last General Election in 2019. You will rarely, if ever, see these data compared, as the media tend to get obsessed with % swings. If you do "drill down" (which seems to be the latest trendy expression) into the data the results may surprise you. It's something that I like to take a look at.

Wellingborough: 2019 General Election. Turnout (in terms of people eligible to vote) was 51,931 (i.e. 64.3% of 80,765).
Of these 13,737 voted Labour and 32,277 voted Tory.

In yesterday's by-election only 30,145 turned out to vote, that's 21,786 less than in 2019.
Of these 13,844 voted Labour and 7,408 voted Tory.

Note: the Labour vote was more or less the same but the Tory vote collapsed. Does that indicate a massive swing to Labour or that a huge number of Tory voters decided to stay home?



Kingswood: 2019 General Election. Turnout (in terms of people eligible to vote) was 49,314 (i.e. 71.5% of 68,972).
Of these 16,492 voted Labour and 27,712 voted Tory.

In yesterday's by-election only 24,905 turned out to vote, that's 24,409 less than in 2019.
Of these 11,176 voted Labour and 8,675 voted Tory.

Note: the Labour vote yesterday was actually less than it was in the 2019 General election but again the Tory vote collapsed. Does that indicate a massive swing to Labour or once again that a huge number of Tory voters decided to stay home?
Also maybe I have read more than you about the numerous by-elections over the last few years but the coverage has continually contained plenty about 'stay at home'/'low turnout' so what you are saying is nothing new and selling it as some uncovered gem in the context of a media blackout/conspiracy is pretty bizarre.

Headlines will always be about the swing, it's a good headline.