I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
To the truly tribal, the most important thing would be to secure the most long term harm to the real enemy, the Tories. That could be achieved by UKIP doing well, as a UKIP win would show it was not a wasted vote and would encourage even more of its current vote to stick with it in 2015. As whoever wins today could be kicked out in a year, a calmly rational Labour supporter with duly appropriate fiery hatred for the Tories in their belly, could consider voting UKIP to be an acceptable option if it meant beating the true opponent.
They may have overestimated how many Labour supporters in Newark are that tribal and dedicated, vs how many would consider sticking with Labour or even voting Tory to keep Helmer out, particular given how steep a challenge UKIP were facing anyway, which could put off plenty of tactically minded voters, polls or no poll.
I have no expectation that they will, or even should, but I really would laugh myself sick if UKIP has won in Newark. The screams of outraged entitlement would be wonderful to hear. It would probably be the biggest, and most deserved, shock to the ruling classes since 1381.
You can't start a Peasants' Revolt in Hurstpierpoint, Mr. Llama.
West Sussex is a place to play village cricket and drink warm beer.
I have no expectation that they will, or even should, but I really would laugh myself sick if UKIP has won in Newark. The screams of outraged entitlement would be wonderful to hear. It would probably be the biggest, and most deserved, shock to the ruling classes since 1381.
Tricky skill, cartooning. I find it hard to quantify what makes one good and what doesn't, but the first didn't get any reaction from me at all, not even dislike, just no reaction, whereas the latter definitely raised a chuckle.
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
You get the feeling the current Labour leadership couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
Well, it might be harder than you imagine thesedays, given teen pregnancy levels are at, I believe, historic lows. Not sure about general pregnancy levels though.
Tricky skill, cartooning. I find it hard to quantify what makes one good and what doesn't, but the first didn't get any reaction from me at all, not even dislike, just no reaction, whereas the latter definitely raised a chuckle.
Part of it is definitely combining two or more concepts in some unexpected way. Matt is brilliant at this, as was the late lamented Jak.
I still think (hope?) that it's going to be very close in Newark, far too close for a post mortem. But should we be looking for the candidate we perhaps should have had, I think Suzanne Evans is worth looking at. I'm really impressed with her. www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQXWUmagwm8
Political Scrapbook @PSbook 1m This photo of Farage out clubbing last night (from tomorrow's Sun) could hurt him when UKIP lose #Newark pic.twitter.com/uURSiCN2Zv
It is BBC policy to only report polls commissioned by news and media organisations, and not political parties and activists, unless the polls become the story themselves such as Lord Oakeshott's polls.
I have no expectation that they will, or even should, but I really would laugh myself sick if UKIP has won in Newark. The screams of outraged entitlement would be wonderful to hear. It would probably be the biggest, and most deserved, shock to the ruling classes since 1381.
You can't start a Peasants' Revolt in Hurstpierpoint, Mr. Llama.
West Sussex is a place to play village cricket and drink warm beer.
I still think (hope?) that it's going to be very close in Newark, far too close for a post mortem. But should we be looking for the candidate we perhaps should have had, I think Suzanne Evans is worth looking at. I'm really impressed with her. www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQXWUmagwm8
Sorry I didn't mean that to come up as a big screen. Can it be made into a link?
I have no expectation that they will, or even should, but I really would laugh myself sick if UKIP has won in Newark. The screams of outraged entitlement would be wonderful to hear. It would probably be the biggest, and most deserved, shock to the ruling classes since 1381.
I would enjoy it as a great bit of fun, there's no question.
It's been a long time since I read anything to do with the Peasant's Revolt of 1381, so I was amused to see this sentence in the wikipedia page for it:
London chroniclers were also unwilling to admit the role of ordinary Londoners in the revolt, preferring to place the blame entirely on rural peasants from the south-east.
Rural folk in the south east causing trouble for the established order? I see no connection to UKIP there.
Looking at the tables of the 2 survation polls Helmer lost a little of his 2010 CON and almost all his 2010 LD in the last days of campaigning, with them going to LAB and the minor candidates. Jenrick increased his margin with LD women quite a lot as Helmer deflated in that group.
They may have overestimated how many Labour supporters in Newark are that tribal and dedicated, vs how many would consider sticking with Labour or even voting Tory to keep Helmer out, particular given how steep a challenge UKIP were facing anyway, which could put off plenty of tactically minded voters, polls or no poll.
I take it as a given that no Labour voter would vote BNP tactically, even to cause the Tories pain.
I find it very hard to believe that credence is given in senior Labour circles to the idea of enough of their supporters voting UKIP to hurt the Tories. UKIP are the distilled essence of everything that causes Labour folks to hate Tories.
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
It will matter if, as seems likely, you actually gone backwards when there was a 20% LibDem vote to squeeze - after all, the approved narrative is that the LibDem defectors are in the bag, is it not?
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
Nick
Say Anna Soubry was appointed EU Commissioner.
Would you advocate Labour follow the same strategy in a Broxtowe by election?
Looking at the tables of the 2 survation polls Helmer lost a little of his 2010 CON and almost all his 2010 LD in the last days of campaigning, with them going to LAB and the minor candidates. Jenrick increased his margin with LD women quite a lot as Helmer deflated in that group.
The UKIP vote was down 1% well within the margin of error. Any changes in its make-up are insignificant.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 4 mins To contrast with the 2012 Manchester Central by-election, Labour won then on a turn out of just 18% http://bit.ly/1kNRbQy
1381 ended with the rebel leaders head on a pike. Not a very good example of a successful revolt.
Golly, Doc, what did I say about a successful revolt? I said I think it would be the biggest shock to the Ruling classes since 1381 (i.e. the Peasants Revolt). I do hope you listen to what your patients actually say with more care.
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
1381 ended with the rebel leaders head on a pike. Not a very good example of a successful revolt.
Golly, Doc, what did I say about a successful revolt? I said I think it would be the biggest shock to the Ruling classes since 1381 (i.e. the Peasants Revolt). I do hope you listen to what your patients actually say with more care.
They may have overestimated how many Labour supporters in Newark are that tribal and dedicated, vs how many would consider sticking with Labour or even voting Tory to keep Helmer out, particular given how steep a challenge UKIP were facing anyway, which could put off plenty of tactically minded voters, polls or no poll.
I take it as a given that no Labour voter would vote BNP tactically, even to cause the Tories pain.
I find it very hard to believe that credence is given in senior Labour circles to the idea of enough of their supporters voting UKIP to hurt the Tories. UKIP are the distilled essence of everything that causes Labour folks to hate Tories.
There are limits, even to tribalists, but I don't see that it is that absurd to think if they softpedalled a significant enough number of their supporters could consider voting UKIP - UKIP have just demonsrated the ability to cut into the Labour vote somewhat, UKIP are making a considerable effort to present as anti-politics even more strongly than they had before, rather than being harder right than the Tories, and even if UKIP are more detestable to them than the Tories, UKIP will help provide Labour a majority, a temporary looking the other way or holding one's nose while voting for them in Newark could really help that larger goal.
It may not have happened that way, it may just be that Labour didn't think it sensible to pour the kind of desperate effort into the seat that the Tories did on the slim chance of a win, with no further motivation beyond letting the other two have a good scrap, but parties supposedly on the left will tack right, and those on the right tack left, without a second's hesitation if they think it will win them votes, so while they may not think enough of their supporters would vote UKIP to hurt the Tories in this example, I don't think UKIP are so detestable to Labour supporters - and the high command know that - to rule it out without due consideration.
Tricky skill, cartooning. I find it hard to quantify what makes one good and what doesn't, but the first didn't get any reaction from me at all, not even dislike, just no reaction, whereas the latter definitely raised a chuckle.
Part of it is definitely combining two or more concepts in some unexpected way. Matt is brilliant at this, as was the late lamented Jak.
And the even later and more lamented Giles. A couple of years ago my son gave me for Christmas a collection of Giles books from the late fifties until the late sixties. Stunning artwork and absolutely biting satire and an big reminder of how much UK society has changed.
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
Surely when Ed's 'one word' is 'One Nation' coming third in a Midlands by election having come a poor third in large parts of the country (most southern and eastern coastal counties for a start) in the Euros doesn't really bode well. Milibnd's. 'One Nation' mantra is becoming as much of an illusion as Cameron's 'Big Society'
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
The opinion polls disagree, even with no campaigning Labour got more than 1/4 of the LD vote while losing only less 1/5 to UKIP, without the extra 1/5 LD for the Tories the score mark would have been CON 38% . If those LD who voted Tory to keep UKIP out voted for Labour you would have crossed 30 easily and come close.
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
Surely when Ed's 'one word' is 'One Nation' coming third in a Midlands by election having come a poor third in large parts of the country (most southern and eastern coastal counties for a start) in the Euros doesn't really bode well. Milibnd's. 'One Nation' mantra is becoming as much of an illusion as Cameron's 'Big Society'
The strength of the mantra of course, for all it is not catching on as these things rarely seem to, is that Labour can be pretty weak in several large areas with high populations and still have a better claim to be 'one nation' than any of the others, given the likely LD wipeout in many areas and Con weakness being worse than labour's in their own weak areas . Although I suppose technically UKIP are the only ones with representation at some level in all four constituent countries of the UK?
Would you advocate Labour follow the same strategy in a Broxtowe by election?
The strategy is a trifle different in seats that we expect to win than seats where we expect to come third. :-)
And, as I said the other day, favouring one nation policies doesn't mean we should delude ourselves that we will win every seat.
But there's no need for us to argue about it. Labour will (I predict) come third tonight. Let's have a look at the polls in a week and see if it's done us any harm. Perhaps it will, perhaps not, who knows?
After the 2010 general election Labour were first or second in 417 seats, of which Newark was one. There were 213 seats in which they came third or lower, with Newark likely to increase that by one more.
How much of the country are they prepared to abandon?
#newarkbyelection Lots of talk about exceptionally high turnout - as much as 60% says one Labour source
Would be the highest this parliament, and a long while before that...
First sign something odd is happening in Newark?
Maybe, but just as likely it's a sign that rumours of high turnout often fly around during by-election days. Add a bit of credence that they've continued into the count, but I'm off to bed and don't expect to wake up to an earthquake - in turnout or result.
After the 2010 general election Labour were first or second in 417 seats, of which Newark was one. There were 213 seats in which they came third or lower, with Newark likely to increase that by one more.
How much of the country are they prepared to abandon?
There are limits, even to tribalists, but I don't see that it is that absurd to think if they softpedalled a significant enough number of their supporters could consider voting UKIP - UKIP have just demonsrated the ability to cut into the Labour vote somewhat, UKIP are making a considerable effort to present as anti-politics even more strongly than they had before, rather than being harder right than the Tories, and even if UKIP are more detestable to them than the Tories, UKIP will help provide Labour a majority, a temporary looking the other way or holding one's nose while voting for them in Newark could really help that larger goal.
It may not have happened that way, it may just be that Labour didn't think it sensible to pour the kind of desperate effort into the seat that the Tories did on the slim chance of a win, with no further motivation beyond letting the other two have a good scrap, but parties supposedly on the left will tack right, and those on the right tack left, without a second's hesitation if they think it will win them votes, so while they may not think enough of their supporters would vote UKIP to hurt the Tories in this example, I don't think UKIP are so detestable to Labour supporters - and the high command know that - to rule it out without due consideration.
Labour are within a year of a General Election. The likely outcome of this by-election will be UKIP = not doing enough to win Westminster seats. Labour = not doing well enough to win enough Westminster seats. Which is then a short step to Ed is Crap....
After the 2010 general election Labour were first or second in 417 seats, of which Newark was one. There were 213 seats in which they came third or lower, with Newark likely to increase that by one more.
How much of the country are they prepared to abandon?
Any amount so long as they win enough in the rest. Ideally they'd not like to abandon any parts, I'm sure, but the tears of Labour activists in the Southern regions will be easy to ignore if the Labour heartlands deliver up the goods again. Future Labour can worry about how to win back the south.
23:12 More on the turn-out from Elizabeth Hambidge: "Returning officer for the Newark by-election Andrew Muter has told the Advertiser he believes the turn out could be close to 58%.
He said there had been a strong postal vote but up until a few hours ago he only expected a turn out of around 50%."
23:10: Advertiser reporter Nicholas Carding: "The Conservative Party representatives are being remarkably tight-lipped so far.
After the 2010 general election Labour were first or second in 417 seats, of which Newark was one. There were 213 seats in which they came third or lower, with Newark likely to increase that by one more.
How much of the country are they prepared to abandon?
65%
The succinctness of that response compared to my own attempt, makes me think I'm the Brookes to the Matt in this scenario.
58% turnout in a by-election? Let's see, that rings a bell.
Ah yes, Crewe and Nantwich by-election, 22 May 2008. Safe seat previously held by the government party, although without the disadvantage of the MP having resigned in disgrace.
After the 2010 general election Labour were first or second in 417 seats, of which Newark was one. There were 213 seats in which they came third or lower, with Newark likely to increase that by one more.
How much of the country are they prepared to abandon?
65%
The succinctness of that response compared to my own attempt, makes me think I'm the Brookes to the Matt in this scenario.
Whatever the result, well done the people of Newark for such an encouraging turnout. Though perhaps all those hundreds of activists threatened to stick around and do post poll analysis by knocking on yet more doors if the turnout wasn't big enough.
I have no expectation that they will, or even should, but I really would laugh myself sick if UKIP has won in Newark. The screams of outraged entitlement would be wonderful to hear. It would probably be the biggest, and most deserved, shock to the ruling classes since 1381.
You can't start a Peasants' Revolt in Hurstpierpoint, Mr. Llama.
West Sussex is a place to play village cricket and drink warm beer.
I can start a Peasants Revolt if I like, thank you very much. Might not get too far, because well, to be honest not too many peasants around these days and Sussex has never been a place for all that showy nonsense - leave that to the people from Essex and Kent is the normal view.
However, whilst we do rather enjoy our cricket, I take exception to the fact that our beer is warm. The correct temperature for proper beer is a around 55 degrees. At the bar of the New Inn is a device which shows the temperature in the cellar - never moves from 54 degrees. Faulty device? Nope, I put a lit cigarette under the gizmo in the cellar one day that made it move. Its just that in 1400, when the New Inn was built, they knew about keeping beer at the right temperature and how to do it without electricity.
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
Surely when Ed's 'one word' is 'One Nation' coming third in a Midlands by election having come a poor third in large parts of the country (most southern and eastern coastal counties for a start) in the Euros doesn't really bode well. Miliband's. 'One Nation' mantra is becoming as much of an illusion as Cameron's 'Big Society'
The strength of the mantra of course, for all it is not catching on as these things rarely seem to, is that Labour can be pretty weak in several large areas with high populations and still have a better claim to be 'one nation' than any of the others, given the likely LD wipeout in many areas and Con weakness being worse than labour's in their own weak areas . Although I suppose technically UKIP are the only ones with representation at some level in all four constituent countries of the UK?
Only in their minds eyes. How can they be the 'one nation' party when the areas where parties like the Tories are weak in are the most sparsely populated (eg Scotland & the North East) and Labour are falling to Scottish Tory levels in the large parts of the South East, South West and Eastern regions.
Would you advocate Labour follow the same strategy in a Broxtowe by election?
The strategy is a trifle different in seats that we expect to win than seats where we expect to come third. :-)
And, as I said the other day, favouring one nation policies doesn't mean we should delude ourselves that we will win every seat.
But there's no need for us to argue about it. Labour will (I predict) come third tonight. Let's have a look at the polls in a week and see if it's done us any harm. Perhaps it will, perhaps not, who knows?
Labour strategy should have been Lab + Lib Dem = 40%. Tory vote divided between UKIP and Conservatives = 30% each. Result = landmark by-election victory for Labour; clear sign that Miliband will enter Number 10.
At the very least they could have put a decent fight in towards that result and retained more credibility. Instead they are going to look like pathetic losers.
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
Surely when Ed's 'one word' is 'One Nation' coming third in a Midlands by election having come a poor third in large parts of the country (most southern and eastern coastal counties for a start) in the Euros doesn't really bode well. Miliband's. 'One Nation' mantra is becoming as much of an illusion as Cameron's 'Big Society'
The strength of the mantra of course, for all it is not catching on as these things rarely seem to, is that Labour can be pretty weak in several large areas with high populations and still have a better claim to be 'one nation' than any of the others, given the likely LD wipeout in many areas and Con weakness being worse than labour's in their own weak areas . Although I suppose technically UKIP are the only ones with representation at some level in all four constituent countries of the UK?
Only in their minds eyes. How can they be the 'one nation' party when the areas where parties like the Tories are weak in are the most sparsely populated (eg Scotland & the North East) and Labour are falling to Scottish Tory levels in the large parts of the South East, South West and Eastern regions.
It's all a question of how you look at it. Scotland and Wales have small populations, but Labour are dominant in Westminster terms whereas the Tories are nowhere, in Scotland at least. That leaves England, which Labour have won before and still get hundreds of seats from. It is certainly true Labour have fallen to woeful levels in some parts of England, but 'One Nation' is easier to claim with a straight face when you have significant MPs from each nation, even if you are doing badly in specific parts of them, than it is for the opposition to claim it when they barely even place in whole nations.
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
Surely when Ed's 'one word' is 'One Nation' coming third in a Midlands by election having come a poor third in large parts of the country (most southern and eastern coastal counties for a start) in the Euros doesn't really bode well. Milibnd's. 'One Nation' mantra is becoming as much of an illusion as Cameron's 'Big Society'
The strength of the mantra of course, for all it is not catching on as these things rarely seem to, is that Labour can be pretty weak in several large areas with high populations and still have a better claim to be 'one nation' than any of the others, given the likely LD wipeout in many areas and Con weakness being worse than labour's in their own weak areas . Although I suppose technically UKIP are the only ones with representation at some level in all four constituent countries of the UK?
At the 2010 GE Labour were third or lower in 213 seats and the Conservatives were third or lower in 135 seats - this suggests that Labour have more of a problem with being weak in their weak areas than the Conservatives.
When does it become a problem for Labour? Are they relaxed about ruling themselves out of 250 seats? 275? 300?!? I suppose 330 seats would still give them a majority if they won them all...
Would you advocate Labour follow the same strategy in a Broxtowe by election?
The strategy is a trifle different in seats that we expect to win than seats where we expect to come third. :-)
And, as I said the other day, favouring one nation policies doesn't mean we should delude ourselves that we will win every seat.
But there's no need for us to argue about it. Labour will (I predict) come third tonight. Let's have a look at the polls in a week and see if it's done us any harm. Perhaps it will, perhaps not, who knows?
Labour strategy should have been Lab + Lib Dem = 40%. Tory vote divided between UKIP and Conservatives = 30% each. Result = landmark by-election victory for Labour; clear sign that Miliband will enter Number 10.
At the very least they could have put a decent fight in towards that result and retained more credibility. Instead they are going to look like pathetic losers.
Like the Tories looked like pathetic losers Wythenshawe and Sale East?
I've got a last scoop. http://www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/newarkbyelection/newarkby-electionresults/ At the bottom of the page you can see the how the count is progressing (now about 1/5 has been counted). Also a picture from ITV gives me a clue that the 1st party is leading the 2nd by about 1/3 of the 1st party's vote.
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Nothing that subtle. We felt we had a choice of spending £100K, trying really hard, raising expectations and coming third - because of the type of seat and the interest in the UKIP challenge - or making a modest effort, saving resources and still coming third. I'd liked us to have tried a bit harder, but not convinced that ending up will 18% or whatever will matter a hoot nationally.
Surely when Ed's 'one word' is 'One Nation' coming third in a Midlands by election having come a poor third in large parts of the country (most southern and eastern coastal counties for a start) in the Euros doesn't really bode well. Milibnd's. 'One Nation' mantra is becoming as much of an illusion as Cameron's 'Big Society'
The strength of the mantra of course, for all it is not catching on as these things rarely seem to, is that Labour can be pretty weak in several large areas with high populations and still have a better claim to be 'one nation' than any of the others, given the likely LD wipeout in many areas and Con weakness being worse than labour's in their own weak areas . Although I suppose technically UKIP are the only ones with representation at some level in all four constituent countries of the UK?
At the 2010 GE Labour were third or lower in 213 seats and the Conservatives were third or lower in 135 seats ..
An interesting statistic I was not aware of, though I suppose it fits the oft lamented Labour electoral 'bias' that results in them winning more seats on less of the vote by simply not turning out in areas they have no chance in.
Did the numbers they came third or lower in increase in 2010? I would hazard a guess that will change in 2015 and they might restore some seconds in what are currently Tory-LD seats (though not ones which are marginal perhaps).
Would you advocate Labour follow the same strategy in a Broxtowe by election?
The strategy is a trifle different in seats that we expect to win than seats where we expect to come third. :-)
And, as I said the other day, favouring one nation policies doesn't mean we should delude ourselves that we will win every seat.
But there's no need for us to argue about it. Labour will (I predict) come third tonight. Let's have a look at the polls in a week and see if it's done us any harm. Perhaps it will, perhaps not, who knows?
Labour strategy should have been Lab + Lib Dem = 40%. Tory vote divided between UKIP and Conservatives = 30% each. Result = landmark by-election victory for Labour; clear sign that Miliband will enter Number 10.
At the very least they could have put a decent fight in towards that result and retained more credibility. Instead they are going to look like pathetic losers.
Like the Tories looked like pathetic losers Wythenshawe and Sale East?
There is a very obvious difference between a party of government and a party of opposition in terms of losing vote share in by-elections.
When the Tories lost Romsey in the 2000 by-election they certainly did look like pathetic losers. For Labour to lose vote share in a seat where they came second on a nationwide vote of less than 30% would indeed be pathetic.
I have no expectation that they will, or even should, but I really would laugh myself sick if UKIP has won in Newark. The screams of outraged entitlement would be wonderful to hear. It would probably be the biggest, and most deserved, shock to the ruling classes since 1381.
You can't start a Peasants' Revolt in Hurstpierpoint, Mr. Llama.
West Sussex is a place to play village cricket and drink warm beer.
I can start a Peasants Revolt if I like, thank you very much. Might not get too far, because well, to be honest not too many peasants around these days and Sussex has never been a place for all that showy nonsense - leave that to the people from Essex and Kent is the normal view.
However, whilst we do rather enjoy our cricket, I take exception to the fact that our beer is warm. The correct temperature for proper beer is a around 55 degrees. At the bar of the New Inn is a device which shows the temperature in the cellar - never moves from 54 degrees. Faulty device? Nope, I put a lit cigarette under the gizmo in the cellar one day that made it move. Its just that in 1400, when the New Inn was built, they knew about keeping beer at the right temperature and how to do it without electricity.
I am always getting caught out on the correct temperature to store and serve alcoholic drinks, Mr. Llama. The Nabavi is a particular stickler. It must be a Sussex thing.
Surprising too as I am (2 generations off though) a scion of a south coast brewing family, long since absorbed into Whitbreads who then exited brewing altogether. So it should run in my blood. I must be a black sheep.
@HurstLlama - Do you enjoy the blessing of Harvey's in said local?
Oh, yes and it is usually well kept. However, I must confess these days it is a pretty awful pub. The fabric is there, medieval cellars (with a bricked up 18th century smugglers tunnel leading we are not too sure where), Tudor walls, a Georgian Front and much, much more). Sounds great except for the last and current owners who completely buggered up the interior so as to make it "family friendly" and destroyed the character. Now its one of those pubs that charge nearly seven quid for a sandwich, dogs aren't welcome (hygiene when food is being served, you know) but screaming kids running around the bars are.
I am still struggling to figure out what was Labour's strategy in Newark. Was it really soft-pedalling in the hope that UKIP would hoover up enough Labour voters to embarrass the Tories? So it was really hoping that enough teachers, trade unionists etc etc etc would vote for UKIP? Really?
The latest over analysis seems to be saying that Labour soft pedalled to allow the Conservatives to win!
Only in their minds eyes. How can they be the 'one nation' party when the areas where parties like the Tories are weak in are the most sparsely populated (eg Scotland & the North East) and Labour are falling to Scottish Tory levels in the large parts of the South East, South West and Eastern regions.
It's all a question of how you look at it. Scotland and Wales have small populations, but Labour are dominant in Westminster terms whereas the Tories are nowhere, in Scotland at least. That leaves England, which Labour have won before and still get hundreds of seats from. It is certainly true Labour have fallen to woeful levels in some parts of England, but 'One Nation' is easier to claim with a straight face when you have significant MPs from each nation, even if you are doing badly in specific parts of them, than it is for the opposition to claim it when they barely even place in whole nations.
Its not a credible argument when England makes up 84% of the population. Whether its 'easier' to claim or not is irrelevant it is risible.
Did the numbers they came third or lower in increase in 2010? I would hazard a guess that will change in 2015 and they might restore some seconds in what are currently Tory-LD seats (though not ones which are marginal perhaps).
I'd have to check the 2005 report from Parliament to see, but you would expect that it did.
However, note that Newark was Tory-Labour-Lib Dem in 2010. If it is now going to become Tory-UKIP-Labour then I don't see that Labour have much chance of recovering in seats where they are currently third. Most likely they will stay third, or drop to fourth, as UKIP pick up votes where Labour have given up.
This is the corrosive impact of tactical voting. Sure, it certainly works wonders in the short term at stuffing it to your opponents, but it ends up eating away at your vote and leaves you defending an ever smaller area in which you are competitive.
Comments
We were told Helmer was one of a handful of UKIP "big beasts"....
Well looking at his views "beast" is very apt.
They may have overestimated how many Labour supporters in Newark are that tribal and dedicated, vs how many would consider sticking with Labour or even voting Tory to keep Helmer out, particular given how steep a challenge UKIP were facing anyway, which could put off plenty of tactically minded voters, polls or no poll.
West Sussex is a place to play village cricket and drink warm beer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27711254
#newarkbyelection Lots of talk about exceptionally high turnout - as much as 60% says one Labour source
Political Scrapbook @PSbook 1m
This photo of Farage out clubbing last night (from tomorrow's Sun) could hurt him when UKIP lose #Newark pic.twitter.com/uURSiCN2Zv
ie:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQXWUmagwm8
It's been a long time since I read anything to do with the Peasant's Revolt of 1381, so I was amused to see this sentence in the wikipedia page for it:
London chroniclers were also unwilling to admit the role of ordinary Londoners in the revolt, preferring to place the blame entirely on rural peasants from the south-east.
Rural folk in the south east causing trouble for the established order? I see no connection to UKIP there.
Jenrick increased his margin with LD women quite a lot as Helmer deflated in that group.
I find it very hard to believe that credence is given in senior Labour circles to the idea of enough of their supporters voting UKIP to hurt the Tories. UKIP are the distilled essence of everything that causes Labour folks to hate Tories.
A good scrapper she is too, with the right degree of passion and compassion.
First sign something odd is happening in Newark?
Due to rumours of a high turnout, it is likely that Newark will declare closer to 03:00 than to 02:00.
Say Anna Soubry was appointed EU Commissioner.
Would you advocate Labour follow the same strategy in a Broxtowe by election?
To contrast with the 2012 Manchester Central by-election, Labour won then on a turn out of just 18% http://bit.ly/1kNRbQy
Oh I agree with you.
So maybe I was agreeing with your analogy...
When did that last happen?
It may not have happened that way, it may just be that Labour didn't think it sensible to pour the kind of desperate effort into the seat that the Tories did on the slim chance of a win, with no further motivation beyond letting the other two have a good scrap, but parties supposedly on the left will tack right, and those on the right tack left, without a second's hesitation if they think it will win them votes, so while they may not think enough of their supporters would vote UKIP to hurt the Tories in this example, I don't think UKIP are so detestable to Labour supporters - and the high command know that - to rule it out without due consideration.
If those LD who voted Tory to keep UKIP out voted for Labour you would have crossed 30 easily and come close.
Welcome to Newark! UKIP sources claim in the town (remember this is quite a rural constituency) they are neck & neck with the Tories so far.
He needed some work - and admitted he had bugger all knowledge about Doctor Who at that point...
Great I'm off to bed.
And, as I said the other day, favouring one nation policies doesn't mean we should delude ourselves that we will win every seat.
But there's no need for us to argue about it. Labour will (I predict) come third tonight. Let's have a look at the polls in a week and see if it's done us any harm. Perhaps it will, perhaps not, who knows?
How much of the country are they prepared to abandon?
Newark Advertiser @advertisergroup
Returning officer Andrew Muter says he believes turn-out could be close to 58 per cent http://ow.ly/xGoLP
Self-inficted wound.
23:12 More on the turn-out from Elizabeth Hambidge: "Returning officer for the Newark by-election Andrew Muter has told the Advertiser he believes the turn out could be close to 58%.
He said there had been a strong postal vote but up until a few hours ago he only expected a turn out of around 50%."
23:10: Advertiser reporter Nicholas Carding: "The Conservative Party representatives are being remarkably tight-lipped so far.
From Newark Advertiser
If you for some miraculous reason want to watch the count live - just little people messing with ballots - go here: http://www.newark-sherwooddc.public-i.tv/core/portal/newarkbyelection …
Ah yes, Crewe and Nantwich by-election, 22 May 2008. Safe seat previously held by the government party, although without the disadvantage of the MP having resigned in disgrace.
Swing: 17.6% to the opposition.
Swing needed for Labour to win Newark: 15.7%
However, whilst we do rather enjoy our cricket, I take exception to the fact that our beer is warm. The correct temperature for proper beer is a around 55 degrees. At the bar of the New Inn is a device which shows the temperature in the cellar - never moves from 54 degrees. Faulty device? Nope, I put a lit cigarette under the gizmo in the cellar one day that made it move. Its just that in 1400, when the New Inn was built, they knew about keeping beer at the right temperature and how to do it without electricity.
Farage now said to be appearing at the count in an hour or so. Suggests result will be close enough for UKIP to crow about #newarkbyelection
hold zero seats on Manchester city council.
Would it be fair to say that they've abandoned this part of country?
At the very least they could have put a decent fight in towards that result and retained more credibility. Instead they are going to look like pathetic losers.
See 2:34 below:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Q10sWwolI
When does it become a problem for Labour? Are they relaxed about ruling themselves out of 250 seats? 275? 300?!? I suppose 330 seats would still give them a majority if they won them all...
If true, it is going to be a very big surprise.
http://www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/newarkbyelection/newarkby-electionresults/
At the bottom of the page you can see the how the count is progressing (now about 1/5 has been counted).
Also a picture from ITV gives me a clue that the 1st party is leading the 2nd by about 1/3 of the 1st party's vote.
twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/474662478430089216/photo/1
Did the numbers they came third or lower in increase in 2010? I would hazard a guess that will change in 2015 and they might restore some seconds in what are currently Tory-LD seats (though not ones which are marginal perhaps).
When the Tories lost Romsey in the 2000 by-election they certainly did look like pathetic losers. For Labour to lose vote share in a seat where they came second on a nationwide vote of less than 30% would indeed be pathetic.
Surprising too as I am (2 generations off though) a scion of a south coast brewing family, long since absorbed into Whitbreads who then exited brewing altogether. So it should run in my blood. I must be a black sheep.
The Scots will save you all!!!!!!!!!!
Ban Page 3!!!!
However, note that Newark was Tory-Labour-Lib Dem in 2010. If it is now going to become Tory-UKIP-Labour then I don't see that Labour have much chance of recovering in seats where they are currently third. Most likely they will stay third, or drop to fourth, as UKIP pick up votes where Labour have given up.
This is the corrosive impact of tactical voting. Sure, it certainly works wonders in the short term at stuffing it to your opponents, but it ends up eating away at your vote and leaves you defending an ever smaller area in which you are competitive.