The opportunities for Cameron and Clegg in Eastleigh are as great as the dangers

Clegg has a chance to prove the Lib Dems won't be wiped out in 2015 and Cameron a chance to show how the Tories could win a majority.

The resignation of Chris Huhne as an MP heralds perhaps the most politically interesting by-election of this parliament. His Eastleigh constituency, just outside Southampton, is that most intriguing thing: a coalition marginal. His majority in 2010 was 3,864 over the Conservatives, with Labour a distant third. While the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland yesterday, set out the "problem for all parties" this by-election poses, it also presents some great opportunities.

Ipsos MORI’s latest poll in January had support for the Liberal Democrats at the lowest level recorded since 1990, on just eight per cent, with UKIP on nine per cent, the highest rating we have ever recorded.  At the other end, Labour had a 13-point lead over the Conservatives. Of course, this is the national picture and locally things can be very different, but it does illustrate the low ebb from which the Liberal Democrats will begin the by-election campaign.

This will be the first time since the formation of the coalition that the two parties will seriously do battle against each other for a Westminster seat. It may well prove a dry run for the general election as we get to see just how the two governing parties will set out their stalls. 

The Lib Dems have held Eastleigh since 1994 when they took the seat from the Conservatives in, appropriately enough, a by-election. At the four general elections since then, the Liberal Democrat majority over the Conservatives has never been more than 4,000. It was high on the Conservatives’ list of target seats in 2010 and will be again in 2015.

The opportunity then presents itself for the Tories to show that they can win seats from the Lib Dems at the next general election. If David Cameron and his party are to win a majority, it is seats like Eastleigh that will need to turn blue. The spoils of victory would bring a much-needed morale boost to the party and help to settle recent rumours of challenges to Cameron's leadership. 

The opportunity for the Lib Dems is also great. Winning a closely fought by-election against the Conservatives would be a huge boon to a party apparently struggling so badly in the polls. It would provide a shot in the arm for members, activists and their leaders. Nick Clegg and his team would have proved that the Liberal Democrats have not been wiped out by forming a coalition with the Conservatives and that they can hold seats at the general election.

For Ed Miliband and Labour the temptation must be to sit back, save valuable resources and watch the Tories and the Lib Dems tie themselves in knots campaigning against each other.

Since the 1994 by-election, when Labour came second, they have been less and less competitive in Eastleigh. In 2010, they won just 9.6 per cent of the vote (compared to the Liberal Democrats’ 46.5 per cent). However, think what a good performance, however unlikely, could do for Labour. Even coming second, as they did in 1994, would surely have Conservative and Liberal Democrat strategists staring at the 2015 drawing board. Miliband, a leader who has not quite convinced his own party's voters yet (only 53 per cent of Labour supporters are satisfied with his leadership compared to 75 per cent of Conservatives for Cameron), would show Labour has gained ground in areas where it was previously uncompetitive. 

In that 1994 by-election a little known Nigel Farage won just 169 more votes than Screaming Lord Sutch. Farage, now leader of UKIP, is being described as the "wildcard" in the 2013 by-election and will undoubtedly have a bigger impact on the results this time around.

But the UKIP leader has yet to decide whether he will run. The perils are obvious, if he runs and loses heavily it would slam the brakes on the momentum he and his party have been building over the last few years. A successful campaign – which does not necessarily just mean victory – would, by contrast, put further wind in the UKIP sails ahead of the general election. Farage may decide the personal risk is too great but still fully back another UKIP candidate. The opportunity for UKIP is to demonstrate that they remain a growing force in British politics.

The prospect of a strong UKIP campaign adds another dimension to the race, and allows political watchers to see the effect it can have on the other parties. We know that 43 per cent of UKIP voters voted for the Conservatives in 2010. So, will UKIP be successful in persuading Conservatives to actually vote for them and in large enough numbers to impact on the result? It is also the first electoral test for the Tories since Cameron’s promise of an in/out EU referendum. How will that impact on UKIP’s support, and what they campaign on? A damp squib of an election for UKIP could well vindicate Cameron’s decision to make the pledge.

In 2010, UKIP won just 3.6 per cent of the vote, but by-elections are unusual and can produce surprise results. Would George Galloway have won in Bradford West last year had it been a general election? Probably not, and it does not necessarily point to further success for the Respect Party in 2015. All of which throws up the prospect of another "unusual" result in Eastleigh which tells us nothing about the next general election.

This by-election is different though. It may not tell us who will win the general election but it will help to shape the narrative for all the parties, either inflating or deflating their political balloons, however temporarily. It will also give us a glimpse into some of the more intriguing aspects of 2015: how will the coalition parties fight each other? What impact will UKIP have on the outcome? Fortune though, favours the brave. There is a great deal to be won in Eastleigh for those who want it.

N.B. It is worth noting that this by-election came about because Chris Huhne asked his wife to take his speeding points; in 2006, 12 per cent of UK drivers said they would ask a friend of relative to take speeding points for them if they were facing a ban. 

Tom Mludzinski is deputy head of politics at Ipsos MORI

For the first time since the coalition was formed, the governing parties will do battle in a Lib Dem-Tory marginal. Photograph: Getty Images.

Tom Mludzinski (@tom_ComRes) is head of political polling at ComRes

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What is the New Hampshire primary, and why does it matter?

Although the contest has proved less influential in recent years, the New Hampshire primary is still a crucial event.

While the Iowa caucuses are the first electoral event in the US’s presidential process, the New Hampshire primary is the candidates' most important early test before the action explodes across the rest of the country.

The stakes are high. If the nominations aren’t decided soon, the campaigns will be damned to a marathon of costly state primaries and caucuses; New Hampshire is their first best chance to avoid that fate. But it didn’t always work this way.

Primaries only became the key element of the nomination process relatively recently. Until the postwar era, presidential candidates were chosen at the national conventions in the summer: in the run-up to the 1960 election, future president John F Kennedy famously entered only one primary (West Virginia’s) to prove that a Roman Catholic could win a Protestant state.

It was only after the turmoil of the 1968 nomination, widely perceived as an establishment fix, that the McGovern-Fraser Commission changed the Democratic party’s rules to end the power of the “smoke-filled room” over the nominating process, prompting many states to adopt meaningful primaries for both parties' nominations.

First in the nation

Unlike caucuses, which generally are used in smaller states that would rather not pay for full-scale ballots, primaries are secret-ballot elections that allow voters to choose who will be their preferred nominee. But not all primaries are the same.

The parties sometimes hold their votes on the same day, as they do in New Hampshire, or on different ones. A primary may be open (allowing any voter to register a preference) or closed (allowing only pre-registered party supporters to vote). New Hampshire has a mixed system which allows voters to register in a primary on the day before voting without declaring a party affiliation.

That means that while all voters registered with a party must vote in that party’s ballot, the New Hampshire result often hinges on these unaffiliated voters. Because they can vote in whichever ballot they like and can register so close to primary day, the state is notoriously difficult to poll.

New Hampshire has cemented its first-in-the-nation status by passing a law that requires its lawmakers to move the state’s primary to pre-empt any other state’s, no matter how early. That means it’s traditionally been not just an important indicator of how candidates are faring, but a way of winnowing the field and generating or killing funding. Candidates who perform poorly generally find their access to money suddenly dries up.

The arguments against New Hampshire’s outsize role are many. Like Iowa, it’s hardly representative of the US as a whole, being a small state with an overwhelmingly white population. And while (unlike Iowa) it has no powerful evangelical Christian element, it retains a very distinctive tradition of small-town New England politics that demand a particular kind of face-to-face, low-to-the-ground campaigning.

But this time around, other factors have cut into New Hampshire’s significance.

On the Republican side, the primary’s winnowing role was in large part pre-empted when the TV networks holding debates allowed only the higher-polling candidates on stage, effectively creating a two-tier system that tarred lower-polling candidates as also-rans long before voting began. Meanwhile, the financial calculations have been transformed by campaign finance reforms that allow for almost unlimited outside fundraising – allowing candidates to build up the reserves they need to withstand a humiliating defeat.

Nonetheless, a truly surprising New Hampshire result could still change everything.

Shuffling the deck

New Hampshire hasn’t always chosen the winner in either the nomination contests or the general election. But it has provided more than its share of political upsets and key turning points, from persuading Lyndon Johnson not to stand again in 1968 to resurrecting the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008.

The incremental campaigns for the nominations are all about the perception of momentum, and a notional front-runner can be dislodged or destabilised by a poor performance early on. That’s especially true in this year’s cycle, in which both major parties are grappling with huge surges of support for outsider, anti-establishment candidates.

Mainstream Republicans have spent months trying to end Donald Trump’s noisy domination of their crowded field. Trump was indeed defeated in Iowa, but not by a moderating force: instead, it was radical conservative Ted Cruz who overturned him.

Cruz is loathed by the party establishment, and he stands little chance of appealing to mainstream voters. Marco Rubio’s strong showing in Iowa briefly made him something of a standard-bearer for the party’s moderates, but a disastrous turn at the last debate before New Hampshire has thrown the future of his candidacy into doubt.

The primary will also reveal who, if any, of the more moderate Republican candidates – among them Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie – will survive. While Bush has a massive funding advantage (albeit with precious little to show for it), Kasich and Christie both need a strong showing in New Hampshire to reinvigorate their financial reserves.

On the Democratic side, the key question is whether Bernie Sanders can make good on the surprising energy of his populist, grassroots challenge to Hillary Clinton. He is currently the heavy favourite in New Hampshire: even if Clinton somehow pulls off a miracle win there as she did in 2008, the closeness of the race is already stimulating both campaigns' national organisation and spending. And with what could be a long race between them heating up, the two’s growing mutual acrimony may yet start to undermine the Democrats' national appeal.

Gillian Peele Associate Professor in Politics and Tutorial Fellow at the University of Oxford.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.