As Mark Senior will tell you there are at least 30 Lib. Dem seats where the opinion poll showing for the LDs nationally could go down to 1% and they would still win. Look at Sutton..they cleaned up T the locals and there is no reason to think they won't hold onto their 2 MPs unless the electorate decide to want a Tory majority which I would be surprised at round here. I went to a couple of council induction events last night and I thought I was at a sixth form college such is the youth of the majority of cllrs from the LDs now most of whom work for either Lib Dem Central office or as researchers for Brake and Burstow. I presume this it the same in Eastleigh and Watford...
The French press are in absolutely no doubt which head of state is the star of today's ceremonies......
An extraordinary woman.
Both the Queen and Prince Philip served in the Second World War (she in a minor way, he in a much more substantial way). For us it's history. For them it's a memory.
Labour's poll % was circa 5% lower than their triumphant result in 2010 under Brown...
They truly are refreshed and ready to sweep back to power. All this 97 stuff on different boundaries is dubious form the Blues - just concentrate on the main opposition losing % votes vs their disastrous results in 2010 (as Ashworth put that last night)
Statistically, there was a swing from the Tories to Labour. OK , a small one, about 1.75%.
But, I would bet even that would lead to a Labour largest party parliament.
So, the Prime Minister visits a constituency four times. Every other Minister and MP visits several times. And, the Tory vote goes down by 8% !
AS Andrew Neil put it, "the Tories threw the whole kitchen sink whereas Labour didn't even toss in a few cutleries"
I rate, and like, TSE but agree his bias is showing here.
This was never a Labour target - they didn't fight the seat.
Remember Manchester Central? The Tories got 700 votes, yet this was breezily brushed away as a "Labour stronghold".
What's good for the goose is not, it seems, good for the gander.
What you're conveniently missing is that in Manchester Central, the tories were in third place behind the lib dems in the GE before the by-election.
In Newark, labour were second.
In addition, Labour WON Newark in 1997.
This was a winnable seat, and labour went backwards.
You're a smart poster, but on this, your spin attempt is slightly pathetic.
This was a winnable seat, and labour went backwards.
Which orifice are you talking out of this morning ? The 44th safest Tory seat !!!!!
1) It required less of a swing than the tories achieved in by-elections in the last parliament 2) Even with different seat boundaries, it was winnable with labour in 1997., (Railings and Thrasher tested the boundary difference, and labour would have got within 600).
The PB Kinnocks seem to be thrashing around a bit this morning...
So the Conservative vote goes down by 8.9 per cent and the Labour vote by 4.6 per cent and this site is then full of people who think that these figures mean the Conservative Party are on course for an election victory ? Always wrong and never ever learn......
Henry G Manson used to do a regular Friday piece as I recall, and we know Mike is a left leaning LD.
But there is a palpable lack of enthusiasm for Labour. Few like Liz Kendall on QT last night, and a few too many robotic party placemen with nothing to say.
It does not bode well for the campaign next year, it is only possible to go so far with negative motivation.
Oh and as a non-aligned leftish lurker think some diversity of opinions on the guest commentator front Is very desperately required. I'm sure they weren't always tub-thumping Tory diehards?
Liz Kendall is one of the new Labour MPs who thinks widely and is prepared accept views that are not normally within the Labour thought spectrum. Have had some very interesting lunches with her.
WRT the Cons effort at Newark, for them it must have been very difficult to judge how much of UKIP's EUROs momentum would be carried forward into this by-election. So it would have been important to stop that momentum and if possible set it back into reverse gear (or for the Cons to regain some of their deserters). It will remain to be seen whether that objective has been gained for the longer term - perhaps a good public row by Cameron with the EU is required and a few wins by May over the ECHR.
Morning all. Great win for Team Tory and the pollsters underestimated the blue team and overestimated the others, especially Labour. Isn't Newark quite close to Broxtowe? Should be very encouraging for NPXMP seeing the Labour vote retreat by 5%.
Yes, Easterross. Tory vote goes down by 8% as it did. Labour goes down by 4.5% as it did.
NPXMP becomes NPMP. QED.
If it gives you comfort that Labour performed so badly in this by-election, in a Labour seat in living memory, pushed into a poor third place, then complacency is your middle name.
Why didn't Labour throw the kitchen sink at this by-election and confront UKIP as Labour spokeman have said they should have at the Euros. Labour ceded the challenger position without a fight.
I am sure it would give Nick great comfort to be elected an MP however it happens. Isn't winning seats the object of the exercise?
Not a single mention here today of the fact that the result in Newark could be taken as showing that UKIP takes twice as many votes from the Conservatives as it does from Labour, but of course that doesn't fit the "UKIP are more of a danger to Labour" hysteria we've had here for the last 2 years.
Morning again all. Have to say that after fewer than 4 hours sleep I'm feeling a bit jaded. I think the Conservative result is probably more impressive after some time to think about it. Mercer hasn't been in the national news much but it stretches credulity to imagine that in the constituency plenty of people were not aware that his dodginess was responsible for the election. The candidate list was longer than usual which will probably pull share from everyone so to end up only 9% down on 2010 is impressive.
The Lib Dems must be worried that their vote share is cratering in such spectacular ways in many areas. I have been assuming 30-40 holds as I expected the Lib Dem share to be more resilient in the GE. I'm beginning now to wonder if the results won't be even worse for the yellows than anyone imagines. I also think we need to think in terms of how bad it is and how long it takes to recover.
I am of the opinion now that the Lib Dems [ under Clegg ] will end up with less than 20 seats. All this talk about they hold on where they are strong is piffle. In Kingston, there vote went down by 13%. They held the Council and Ed Davey is the MP>
Run your finger down the LibDem seats and find over 37 realistic losses to take you to under 20. It'll take some doing.
I agree with that assessment Jack although there could be some surprises on the night where we are not expecting but I would say the LDs will hang onto at least 35-40 seats
I disagreed at the time (I'd already piled on the Conservatives). But our host had logic.
Labour seem to have decided, like flighty cleaners, that there are some things that they just won't do. They won't do suburban seats in the south. They won't do market towns in the east Midlands. Sooner or later they're going to have to decide when they are going to join the fray.
Labour do not have the money the Tories have. We will fight 105 seats. And they are looking OK.
One nation Labour, but the one nation starts north of the Severn and the Wash?
Pathetic! How about London where Labour dominate. You think Labour should have wasted money on a seat it could not win? Don't pursue a career as an election strategist.
"Wiggins told BBC Breakfast: "The team is focused around Chris Froome.
"I am gutted. I've worked extremely hard for this throughout the winter and up to the summer. I feel I am in the form I was two years ago."
He added: "But I also understand that cycling is a team sport and it is all about Team Sky winning and Chris is defending champion.""
Unfair/selfish of him not to participate when Froome helped him out and (from memory) he didn't ride last year? I seem to remember those who follow cycling considered it perhaps unfair of him not to return the favour for Froome last time.
Morning again all. Have to say that after fewer than 4 hours sleep I'm feeling a bit jaded. I think the Conservative result is probably more impressive after some time to think about it. Mercer hasn't been in the national news much but it stretches credulity to imagine that in the constituency plenty of people were not aware that his dodginess was responsible for the election. The candidate list was longer than usual which will probably pull share from everyone so to end up only 9% down on 2010 is impressive.
The Lib Dems must be worried that their vote share is cratering in such spectacular ways in many areas. I have been assuming 30-40 holds as I expected the Lib Dem share to be more resilient in the GE. I'm beginning now to wonder if the results won't be even worse for the yellows than anyone imagines. I also think we need to think in terms of how bad it is and how long it takes to recover.
I am of the opinion now that the Lib Dems [ under Clegg ] will end up with less than 20 seats. All this talk about they hold on where they are strong is piffle. In Kingston, there vote went down by 13%. They held the Council and Ed Davey is the MP>
Run your finger down the LibDem seats and find over 37 realistic losses to take you to under 20. It'll take some doing.
Where does a loss of Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey take us ?
So the Conservative vote goes down by 8.9 per cent and the Labour vote by 4.6 per cent and this site is then full of people who think that these figures mean the Conservative Party are on course for an election victory ? Always wrong and never ever learn......
Last nights swing would see Tory largest party. Because, ya know, by elections always favour the government. Always blasé and never in power
I disagreed at the time (I'd already piled on the Conservatives). But our host had logic.
Labour seem to have decided, like flighty cleaners, that there are some things that they just won't do. They won't do suburban seats in the south. They won't do market towns in the east Midlands. Sooner or later they're going to have to decide when they are going to join the fray.
Labour do not have the money the Tories have. We will fight 105 seats. And they are looking OK.
One nation Labour, but the one nation starts north of the Severn and the Wash?
Pathetic! How about London where Labour dominate. You think Labour should have wasted money on a seat it could not win? Don't pursue a career as an election strategist.
I wouldn't bother pursuing a career as a political spinner either. Keep ignoring the points others make about the swing required being less than in previous by-election victories, keep ignoring that Labour got squeezed in a seat where they were previously second. Keep putting your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes (or vice versa - the spinning is scarcely more painful). This was a poor result for Labour by any sensible test.
Confirmation of the trend seen in local elections that we're entering into a three party situation, each with discreet voting blocks:
Middle class private sector = Conservative Middle class public sector +ethnic minorities = Labour WWC = UKIP
The media will doubtless continue their lazy and inaccurate portrayal of UKIP as a reactionary party from the Conservative heartlands.
So we should expect big gains for UKIP in the North-East, the North-West, South Wales and Scotland. I am not sure that will happen, but we'll see.
You'll see big gains in votes by UKIP in those areas.
Of course there are counters to my broad brushstrokes because of the heavy public sector employment in those areas, the Labour heritage vote and the 'ethnic' effect in Scotland and Wales ie Scots , and to a lesser extent Welsh, thinking of themselves different to the 'English' UKIP.
A lot of politics is about momentum. At the moment it’s the Tories who have it. Not quite the Big Mo, but a Moderate Mo that’s growing.......But, as I said at the start, politics is about momentum. Our Coalition partners have it. We don’t. Time’s running out to re-gain it.
Anyway, to betting. If, like me, you detect substantial anti-UKIP tactical voting in favour of the Conservatives, you might wish to consider which seats look like being fights between the Tories and UKIP and betting accordingly.
I disagreed at the time (I'd already piled on the Conservatives). But our host had logic.
Labour seem to have decided, like flighty cleaners, that there are some things that they just won't do. They won't do suburban seats in the south. They won't do market towns in the east Midlands. Sooner or later they're going to have to decide when they are going to join the fray.
Labour do not have the money the Tories have. We will fight 105 seats. And they are looking OK.
One nation Labour, but the one nation starts north of the Severn and the Wash?
Pathetic! How about London where Labour dominate. You think Labour should have wasted money on a seat it could not win? Don't pursue a career as an election strategist.
I wouldn't bother pursuing a career as a political spinner either. Keep ignoring the points others make about the swing required being less than in previous by-election victories, keep ignoring that Labour got squeezed in a seat where they were previously second. Keep putting your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes (or vice versa - the spinning is scarcely more painful). This was a poor result for Labour by any sensible test.
They're bricking it and lashing out. The nasty party showing it's face again. McBrides party
Anyway, to betting. If, like me, you detect substantial anti-UKIP tactical voting in favour of the Conservatives, you might wish to consider which seats look like being fights between the Tories and UKIP and betting accordingly.
"Wiggins told BBC Breakfast: "The team is focused around Chris Froome.
"I am gutted. I've worked extremely hard for this throughout the winter and up to the summer. I feel I am in the form I was two years ago."
He added: "But I also understand that cycling is a team sport and it is all about Team Sky winning and Chris is defending champion.""
Unfair/selfish of him not to participate when Froome helped him out and (from memory) he didn't ride last year? I seem to remember those who follow cycling considered it perhaps unfair of him not to return the favour for Froome last time.
From the R5 interview it is clear Wiggo has been dropped by team Sky.
They would rather have mountain and cobblestone stage helpers than a chance of winning the only time trial.
On the important day, I am reflecting with pride on the role of my late cousin Sir John Fisher who co-ordinated the thousands of non-naval ships used both at Dunkirk and 70 years ago today, on D Day.
Labour was irrelevant here both to its own prospects and to Newark. The contest was between the tories and UKIP. The UKIP vote shows they will hit a ceiling time and time again as they only appeal to about 30% (at most ) of any electorate. The rest of the 70% of the voters actually dislike them (or think they are rank amateurs ) . They cannot win seats therefore in a general election. Con/UKIP voters should take note of this result to make sure they vote Conservative in the General Election
Labour result is probably explained by the rather cynical ploy to not fight hard here in order to hope that UKIP could win so that the UKIP momentum could be used to take TOry/Lab marginal by splitting the right. At least that failed!! (and Labour should be ashamed)
The French press are in absolutely no doubt which head of state is the star of today's ceremonies......
An extraordinary woman.
Both the Queen and Prince Philip served in the Second World War (she in a minor way, he in a much more substantial way). For us it's history. For them it's a memory.
For us it's a connection. A really important one. I wonder how we'll all deal with the 21st century monarchy when it arrives.
I disagreed at the time (I'd already piled on the Conservatives). But our host had logic.
Labour seem to have decided, like flighty cleaners, that there are some things that they just won't do. They won't do suburban seats in the south. They won't do market towns in the east Midlands. Sooner or later they're going to have to decide when they are going to join the fray.
Labour do not have the money the Tories have. We will fight 105 seats. And they are looking OK.
One nation Labour, but the one nation starts north of the Severn and the Wash?
Pathetic! How about London where Labour dominate. You think Labour should have wasted money on a seat it could not win? Don't pursue a career as an election strategist.
I wouldn't bother pursuing a career as a political spinner either. Keep ignoring the points others make about the swing required being less than in previous by-election victories, keep ignoring that Labour got squeezed in a seat where they were previously second. Keep putting your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes (or vice versa - the spinning is scarcely more painful). This was a poor result for Labour by any sensible test.
Tory vote share down 9 per cent. Labour down 4.6 per cent. Great night for the Conservatives, terrible night for Labour. Meanwhile, in the real world, I would suggest not a great result for anyone but on these figures Labour would be the largest party surely ?
So the Conservative vote goes down by 8.9 per cent and the Labour vote by 4.6 per cent and this site is then full of people who think that these figures mean the Conservative Party are on course for an election victory ? Always wrong and never ever learn......
Last nights swing would see Tory largest party. Because, ya know, by elections always favour the government. Always blasé and never in power
"Last nights swing would see Tory largest party"
I am not so sure. With Con, Lab and UKIP , all in the 20's and LD in single figures, the Baxter computer would over heat.
The Tories could lose virtually the whole of Essex and Kent.
@Easterross On the important day, I am contemplating the death of my late mothers favourite brother, something she never really got over. In the grand scheme of things his name is hardly remembered, but they were the ones who died to make someone else's plan work.
Disappointing performance by the Bus Pass Elvis Party.
Compared with forecasts and expectations, that was a stonking performance by the Tories. The boost to morale (and the fact that all those bussed-in young activists will have gained campaigning experience and feel part of a great success) could be quite a significant factor in how things develop.
Objectively a good performance by UKIP, but good is not good enough when you've talked about 'earthquakes'. What in heaven's name were they doing when they chose Helmer as their candidate???
As for Labour: dire. Absolutely dire. What happened to those LD->Lab switchers?
The LibDems: ouch.
Overall, this looks to me like one of those classic by-elections of the past where a party of protest got a chunk of votes in a safe seat. The only thing which is different is that, in recent years, it has been the Liberals/LibDems who've temporarily picked up those protest votes. Now it's UKIP.
Smug mode this morning. UKIP performed very well in a seat they were never going to win and the Lib Dems were humiliated. Sorry for Newark in that they ended up with an identikit Cameroon who won't do much for the seat but it was as expected.
Momentum is still with UKIP and I stand by my prediction of double figures share of the vote (easily beating the Lib Dems) and 1-2 seats at the next GE.
I disagreed at the time (I'd already piled on the Conservatives). But our host had logic.
Labour seem to have decided, like flighty cleaners, that there are some things that they just won't do. They won't do suburban seats in the south. They won't do market towns in the east Midlands. Sooner or later they're going to have to decide when they are going to join the fray.
I didn't agree with Mike on this occasion and, like Richard Tyndall, forecasted an easy Tory hold from the start, for the reasons I lay down downthread. As in my Euros prediction, I was right.
As for your poser: that's easy.
Fight the battles you can win. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats.
It depends what battle you are fighting.
Although you are right on the specific by-election, there is a macro battle: Labour's position as the national challenger to the Tories, government in waiting etc, etc. On it's own does Newark matter: of course not. As part of an overall narrative - especially given that Labour's share of the vote actually declined - that should be much more troubling.
It leads to the conclusion that (1) Miliband doesn't attract votes - that essentially a vote for Labour is an anti-Toy vote. That's not a USP because of UKIP (2) there is the potential for tactical voting by Labour/LibDems for the Tories if they see UKIP as a major challenger and (3) that Labour may be somewhat complacent. There are ways you can fight a by-election cheaply.
Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon a great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened, he will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man to man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our home fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to victory!
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!
Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
-- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
That's seriously impressive oratory. Verbs and everything ;-)
Seriously, though, I hadn't realised that "United Nations" was used as a term during the war.
As an aside, my parents have just given me a coin that Churchill had inscribed with "Salute the Great Coalition". Rather at a loss what to do with it: it was a sarky jab by them; it's quite a clunky piece of metal; but it has sentimental value (it sat on my grandfather's desk for years). Any suggestions what to do with it?
Charles is there not an appropriate glass case somewhere you can display it at home and I assume there is a younger person within the family to whom you can give it at an appropriate time. In the event of no issue, I have decided upon a nephew who will be my sole heir. Can't stand the thought of back biting among some of the younger generation in order to secure my loot having seen it in my mother's generation set members of the family against one another.
"Wiggins told BBC Breakfast: "The team is focused around Chris Froome.
"I am gutted. I've worked extremely hard for this throughout the winter and up to the summer. I feel I am in the form I was two years ago."
He added: "But I also understand that cycling is a team sport and it is all about Team Sky winning and Chris is defending champion.""
Unfair/selfish of him not to participate when Froome helped him out and (from memory) he didn't ride last year? I seem to remember those who follow cycling considered it perhaps unfair of him not to return the favour for Froome last time.
Chris Froome deserves the leader's place - I think he could be the next Hinault. Sky needs to build the team around him, and is doing so. I reckon he's the real deal, I have him to win 5 TdF @ 20-1 with Ladbrokes. He is a superb athlete and if the TdF was rated like the horses would be at least a stone better than the rest. Quintana is his nearest rival, and he's either not riding or will be knackered frm winning the Giro.
BUT
Brad sounded absolutely gutted this morning on the radio. It sounded like he really wanted to ride Le Tour, especially as it starts in Britain. He would have had a very good shot at the Time Trial near the end, and his diesel engine would have been excellent for working low gradient hills and the flat, need to get Chris back on the pack in an echelon stage ? Bradley is as good as anybody out there for that. Chris needs help on the cobbles ? Bradley is a decent enough cobbles rider. Le Tour goes tits up, Chris crashes out and Sky haven't won a stage ? Brad is a great shot for the Time Trial.
He as good as said he was leaving Sky and I think he could very well head off to another team... Orica Green Edge would be the favourites in a betting market, as they have no GC contenders (With enough TT in a route he can still win GC), and perhaps BMC second favourites. I can imagine Garmin Sharp also being interested too perhaps. Who would blame him ? I think a change would be the best thing now for Brad.
I disagreed at the time (I'd already piled on the Conservatives). But our host had logic.
Labour seem to have decided, like flighty cleaners, that there are some things that they just won't do. They won't do suburban seats in the south. They won't do market towns in the east Midlands. Sooner or later they're going to have to decide when they are going to join the fray.
Labour do not have the money the Tories have. We will fight 105 seats. And they are looking OK.
One nation Labour, but the one nation starts north of the Severn and the Wash?
Pathetic! How about London where Labour dominate. You think Labour should have wasted money on a seat it could not win? Don't pursue a career as an election strategist.
It was a poor result for Labour. The more important issue, though, is whether it actually tells us much about what will happen next year in the constituencies in which the election will be decided. Newark is not one of those. What we can conclude safely is that labour is not going to win a big majority and that any kind of majority is highly unlikely. But for me the big takeaway is that there could well be an anti-UKIP tactical vote emerging. If that is the case it will undoubtedly help the Tories.
Morning all. Great win for Team Tory and the pollsters underestimated the blue team and overestimated the others, especially Labour. Isn't Newark quite close to Broxtowe? Should be very encouraging for NPXMP seeing the Labour vote retreat by 5%.
Yes, Easterross. Tory vote goes down by 8% as it did. Labour goes down by 4.5% as it did.
NPXMP becomes NPMP. QED.
If it gives you comfort that Labour performed so badly in this by-election, in a Labour seat in living memory, pushed into a poor third place, then complacency is your middle name.
Why didn't Labour throw the kitchen sink at this by-election and confront UKIP as Labour spokeman have said they should have at the Euros. Labour ceded the challenger position without a fight.
I am sure it would give Nick great comfort to be elected an MP however it happens. Isn't winning seats the object of the exercise?
Not a single mention here today of the fact that the result in Newark could be taken as showing that UKIP takes twice as many votes from the Conservatives as it does from Labour, but of course that doesn't fit the "UKIP are more of a danger to Labour" hysteria we've had here for the last 2 years.
By-elections are unique political events that rarely shape the nature of a general election.
However my lasting impression of this one is :
Con - Better than expected. UKIP - Worse than expected Lab - Expected little and did worse. LibDem - No expectation and worse than no good
So the Conservative vote goes down by 8.9 per cent and the Labour vote by 4.6 per cent and this site is then full of people who think that these figures mean the Conservative Party are on course for an election victory ? Always wrong and never ever learn......
Last nights swing would see Tory largest party. Because, ya know, by elections always favour the government. Always blasé and never in power
"Last nights swing would see Tory largest party"
I am not so sure. With Con, Lab and UKIP , all in the 20's and LD in single figures, the Baxter computer would over heat.
The Tories could lose virtually the whole of Essex and Kent.
I have put the following figures in UKPR swingometer.
The French press are in absolutely no doubt which head of state is the star of today's ceremonies......
An extraordinary woman.
Both the Queen and Prince Philip served in the Second World War (she in a minor way, he in a much more substantial way). For us it's history. For them it's a memory.
For us it's a connection. A really important one. I wonder how we'll all deal with the 21st century monarchy when it arrives.
The monarchy will do what it always has done. Move and change as needed. That's one of the strengths of our (unwritten) constitution.
Unlike the US, where they're clinging to their Constitution like its some holy relic which can never change.
By-elections are odd things, and vote movements in them are often exaggerated. Yes the Tories lost 9% of share in this by-election however anyone seriously expect that to be repeated next year? The likelihood is that next year the vote share will be comfortably over 50% again.
Labour simply shouldn't have been in a position to lose share. Does it necessarily mean anything in context for next year? Of course not, but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
Morning again all. Have to say that after fewer than 4 hours sleep I'm feeling a bit jaded. I think the Conservative result is probably more impressive after some time to think about it. Mercer hasn't been in the national news much but it stretches credulity to imagine that in the constituency plenty of people were not aware that his dodginess was responsible for the election. The candidate list was longer than usual which will probably pull share from everyone so to end up only 9% down on 2010 is impressive.
The Lib Dems must be worried that their vote share is cratering in such spectacular ways in many areas. I have been assuming 30-40 holds as I expected the Lib Dem share to be more resilient in the GE. I'm beginning now to wonder if the results won't be even worse for the yellows than anyone imagines. I also think we need to think in terms of how bad it is and how long it takes to recover.
I am of the opinion now that the Lib Dems [ under Clegg ] will end up with less than 20 seats. All this talk about they hold on where they are strong is piffle. In Kingston, there vote went down by 13%. They held the Council and Ed Davey is the MP>
Run your finger down the LibDem seats and find over 37 realistic losses to take you to under 20. It'll take some doing.
I agree with that assessment Jack although there could be some surprises on the night where we are not expecting but I would say the LDs will hang onto at least 35-40 seats
The latest ARSE general election projection for the LibDems is 32 seats. A new full projection with the first "JackW Dozen" listing will be published on Tuesday.
Morning all. Great win for Team Tory and the pollsters underestimated the blue team and overestimated the others, especially Labour. Isn't Newark quite close to Broxtowe? Should be very encouraging for NPXMP seeing the Labour vote retreat by 5%.
Yes, Easterross. Tory vote goes down by 8% as it did. Labour goes down by 4.5% as it did.
NPXMP becomes NPMP. QED.
If it gives you comfort that Labour performed so badly in this by-election, in a Labour seat in living memory, pushed into a poor third place, then complacency is your middle name.
Why didn't Labour throw the kitchen sink at this by-election and confront UKIP as Labour spokeman have said they should have at the Euros. Labour ceded the challenger position without a fight.
I am sure it would give Nick great comfort to be elected an MP however it happens. Isn't winning seats the object of the exercise?
Not a single mention here today of the fact that the result in Newark could be taken as showing that UKIP takes twice as many votes from the Conservatives as it does from Labour, but of course that doesn't fit the "UKIP are more of a danger to Labour" hysteria we've had here for the last 2 years.
By-elections are unique political events that rarely shape the nature of a general election.
However my lasting impression of this one is :
Con - Better than expected. UKIP - Worse than expected Lab - Expected little and did worse. LibDem - No expectation and worse than no good
"Wiggins told BBC Breakfast: "The team is focused around Chris Froome.
"I am gutted. I've worked extremely hard for this throughout the winter and up to the summer. I feel I am in the form I was two years ago."
He added: "But I also understand that cycling is a team sport and it is all about Team Sky winning and Chris is defending champion.""
Unfair/selfish of him not to participate when Froome helped him out and (from memory) he didn't ride last year? I seem to remember those who follow cycling considered it perhaps unfair of him not to return the favour for Froome last time.
Morning again all. Have to say that after fewer than 4 hours sleep I'm feeling a bit jaded. I think the Conservative result is probably more impressive after some time to think about it. Mercer hasn't been in the national news much but it stretches credulity to imagine that in the constituency plenty of people were not aware that his dodginess was responsible for the election. The candidate list was longer than usual which will probably pull share from everyone so to end up only 9% down on 2010 is impressive.
The Lib Dems must be worried that their vote share is cratering in such spectacular ways in many areas. I have been assuming 30-40 holds as I expected the Lib Dem share to be more resilient in the GE. I'm beginning now to wonder if the results won't be even worse for the yellows than anyone imagines. I also think we need to think in terms of how bad it is and how long it takes to recover.
I am of the opinion now that the Lib Dems [ under Clegg ] will end up with less than 20 seats. All this talk about they hold on where they are strong is piffle. In Kingston, there vote went down by 13%. They held the Council and Ed Davey is the MP>
Run your finger down the LibDem seats and find over 37 realistic losses to take you to under 20. It'll take some doing.
Where does a loss of Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey take us ?
Labour simply shouldn't have been in a position to lose share. Does it necessarily mean anything in context for next year? Of course not, but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
Ukip beat Labour for the best loser crown because they have an offering (of angryness and rage).
Labour have something about electricity bills.
Labour are no longer a serious national party - they are a special interest group.
As half of kippers came from the conservatives (possibly more in Newark as half of all voters were Tory , and hard to see Roger Helmer pulling in Labour or LD voters), there must have been LD and Lab movement to Con.
Many of them might simply have not voted at all. That strikes me as quite likely, with a demoralised LibDem party hardly bothering to campaign, and Labour not exactly on rollicking form either.
So the Conservative vote goes down by 8.9 per cent and the Labour vote by 4.6 per cent and this site is then full of people who think that these figures mean the Conservative Party are on course for an election victory ? Always wrong and never ever learn......
Last nights swing would see Tory largest party. Because, ya know, by elections always favour the government. Always blasé and never in power
"Last nights swing would see Tory largest party"
I am not so sure. With Con, Lab and UKIP , all in the 20's and LD in single figures, the Baxter computer would over heat.
The Tories could lose virtually the whole of Essex and Kent.
I have put the following figures in UKPR swingometer.
Con28, Lab 25.3, LD 6, Others 40.7 and I get
Labour largest party. 29 short.
I was using a direct swing of 2% Con to Lab with the Lib Dems on 8 and UKIP on 18
Morning again all. Have to say that after fewer than 4 hours sleep I'm feeling a bit jaded. I think the Conservative result is probably more impressive after some time to think about it. Mercer hasn't been in the national news much but it stretches credulity to imagine that in the constituency plenty of people were not aware that his dodginess was responsible for the election. The candidate list was longer than usual which will probably pull share from everyone so to end up only 9% down on 2010 is impressive.
The Lib Dems must be worried that their vote share is cratering in such spectacular ways in many areas. I have been assuming 30-40 holds as I expected the Lib Dem share to be more resilient in the GE. I'm beginning now to wonder if the results won't be even worse for the yellows than anyone imagines. I also think we need to think in terms of how bad it is and how long it takes to recover.
I am of the opinion now that the Lib Dems [ under Clegg ] will end up with less than 20 seats. All this talk about they hold on where they are strong is piffle. In Kingston, there vote went down by 13%. They held the Council and Ed Davey is the MP>
Run your finger down the LibDem seats and find over 37 realistic losses to take you to under 20. It'll take some doing.
I agree with that assessment Jack although there could be some surprises on the night where we are not expecting but I would say the LDs will hang onto at least 35-40 seats
The latest ARSE general election projection for the LibDems is 32 seats. A new full projection with the first "JackW Dozen" listing will be published on Tuesday.
The high point for me last night was Matt Hancock's eye roll at Diane James' latest idiocy.
Seriously 60 UKIP gains at the next election.
UKIP remind me of Saddam Hussein, promising the mother of all battles and then delivering the mother of all retreats.
I'm wondering if the General Election could be UKIP's Watling St, yes they've been causing everyone a scare set fire to a few settlements etc but perhaps just perhaps they're overreaching and about to run into the discipline and superior tactics of the professionals
That's seriously impressive oratory. Verbs and everything ;-)
Seriously, though, I hadn't realised that "United Nations" was used as a term during the war.
As an aside, my parents have just given me a coin that Churchill had inscribed with "Salute the Great Coalition". Rather at a loss what to do with it: it was a sarky jab by them; it's quite a clunky piece of metal; but it has sentimental value (it sat on my grandfather's desk for years). Any suggestions what to do with it?
Charles is there not an appropriate glass case somewhere you can display it at home and I assume there is a younger person within the family to whom you can give it at an appropriate time. In the event of no issue, I have decided upon a nephew who will be my sole heir. Can't stand the thought of back biting among some of the younger generation in order to secure my loot having seen it in my mother's generation set members of the family against one another.
Charles, keep it for now and send it to Ed if he forms a coalition next year.
The triumphalism on display here is absolutely hilarious in the face of a single safe seat hold on a reduced majority. Hubris doesn't begin to cover it. One would barely know that Labour's lead is back on the rise to the upper single digits, while the Cons bang along their historical nadir with no end in sight.
The clear question which arises IS the Labour lead actually rising or are the pollsters just heading for the same sort of success they achieved in 1992? Last week people on here were chortling at Lord Ashcroft's Newark poll and even he underestimated the Tory vote share by 3%. I well remember the 1979-1997 era when the news of a by-election almost automatically meant Tory Loss. We lost safe seat after safe seat in by-elections. The Tory majority last night was way beyond almost anyone's expectation. I had hoped for 1500 but would have settled for 1 after 4 recounts.
People express surprise at the number of young campaigners the Tories put on the streets of Newark. I have been telling you for months to ignore the notion that paid up party membership is somhow an indication of strength on the ground. Young people now don't "join" the way older generations did. They dip in and dip out as suits them. In Scotland the reason we have seen our vote share rise over the past 2 years is because we now have a growing team of young campaigners who will happily spend one weekend in the Borders and the next weekend in Aberdeenshire. We are also seeing some excellent young candidates selected in open primaries etc who will give the LibDems especially and also Labour and the SNP a run for their money next year.
The high point for me last night was Matt Hancock's eye roll at Diane James' latest idiocy.
Seriously 60 UKIP gains at the next election.
UKIP remind me of Saddam Hussein, promising the mother of all battles and then delivering the mother of all retreats.
I'm wondering if the General Election could be UKIP's Watling St, yes they've been causing everyone a scare set fire to a few settlements etc but perhaps just perhaps they're overreaching and about to run into the discipline and superior tactics of the professionals
It'll be their. Zama.
Overrated fool with a few minor victories, his arrogance sees his team get shellacked.
UKIP winning the Euros was their Cannae. Sounds impressive but not really that great when you think about it.
Confirmation of the trend seen in local elections that we're entering into a three party situation, each with discreet voting blocks:
Middle class private sector = Conservative Middle class public sector +ethnic minorities = Labour WWC = UKIP
The media will doubtless continue their lazy and inaccurate portrayal of UKIP as a reactionary party from the Conservative heartlands.
Whilst I don't disagree with your point, it's important to distinguish between UKIP voters, and the party itself. Many of the most senior politicians in UKIP do in fact fit what you call the media's 'lazy and inaccurate portrayal' - Roger Helmer being an excellent example. It's a curious disconnect between the party and many of its voters, and one which I suspect will limit its effectiveness over time.
The elephant in the room remains UKIP, who took 26% of the vote last night. To listen to some of you its as if this is an additional quarter of the vote added on top. Same with the Euros, where for the first time in a century someone other than the Tories or Labour came top in a national election.
When you have a change this large, to compare before and after results and say its like for like is at best disingenuous and at worst fantasy. Yes the Tories won the seat when some suggested (hoped) they wouldn't, and thats clearly a great result for them. But They still lost 17% of their vote in a seat where UKIP came from nowhere to take a quarter share. ANd thats having thrown every resource they had at the seat on a scale thats completely impossible to repeat across key marginals in the GE.
So, like Eastleigh for the LibDems, take this as the apogee for the Tories. In how many seats they either need to win or to defend does a -17% for them and a +hundreds% for UKIP lose them the seat on a swing to Labour of 2%. Then strip out the 4 visits from the PM and the army of activists and intensify the swing - how many more seats go?
The French press are in absolutely no doubt which head of state is the star of today's ceremonies......
An extraordinary woman.
Both the Queen and Prince Philip served in the Second World War (she in a minor way, he in a much more substantial way). For us it's history. For them it's a memory.
For us it's a connection. A really important one. I wonder how we'll all deal with the 21st century monarchy when it arrives.
The monarchy will do what it always has done. Move and change as needed. That's one of the strengths of our (unwritten) constitution.
Unlike the US, where they're clinging to their Constitution like its some holy relic which can never change.
There have been thirty three amendments to the US constitution.
UKIP may be a flash in the pan - I'm genuinely unsure. However, it's worth remembering that It did take Labour several elections to achieve a significant parliamentary presence.
Confirmation of the trend seen in local elections that we're entering into a three party situation, each with discreet voting blocks:
Middle class private sector = Conservative Middle class public sector +ethnic minorities = Labour WWC = UKIP
The media will doubtless continue their lazy and inaccurate portrayal of UKIP as a reactionary party from the Conservative heartlands.
Whilst I don't disagree with your point, it's important to distinguish between UKIP voters, and the party itself. Many of the most senior politicians in UKIP do in fact fit what you call the media's 'lazy and inaccurate portrayal' - Roger Helmer being an excellent example. It's a curious disconnect between the party and many of its voters, and one which I suspect will limit its effectiveness over time.
Helmer does. You can make a case with Farage, although he's more of a city boy. You certainly can't for Diane James and Paul Nuttall.
SOUTH LANARKSHIRE - Clydesdale South (LAB GAIN) SOUTH LANARKSHIRE - Clydesdale South (SNP resigned)
1st preferences were
Lab 1492 SNP 1170 Con 659 UKIP 233 Green 104
Percentages
Lab 40.7 down 3.6 % SNP 31.9 down 9.4% Con 18.0 plus 7.6% UKIP 6.4 plus 2.4% Green 2.9 plus 2.9%
2012 - Lab 1149/875, SNP 1625/313, Con 487, UKIP 199 2007 - Lab 1709/1245, SNP 1156/1148, Con 734, Grn 183
Donna HOOD (Scottish Conservative and Unionist) Donald MACKAY (UKIP) Gordon MUIR (Scottish Labour Party) George SNEDDON (Scottish National Party (SNP)) Ruth THOMAS (Scottish Green Party)
Well done to Donna Hood for increasing the Scottish Tory vote by 7.6% yesterday.
UKIP clearly suffering from their failure to deliver. It's been two weeks since the voters of the UK turned out in their millions to support Farage's party and gave them a huge mandate. Yet a fortnight on and we are still in the EU? Puh.....all hat and no cattle, these Kippers.
The high point for me last night was Matt Hancock's eye roll at Diane James' latest idiocy.
Seriously 60 UKIP gains at the next election.
UKIP remind me of Saddam Hussein, promising the mother of all battles and then delivering the mother of all retreats.
I'm wondering if the General Election could be UKIP's Watling St, yes they've been causing everyone a scare set fire to a few settlements etc but perhaps just perhaps they're overreaching and about to run into the discipline and superior tactics of the professionals
I imagine UKIP will get seats in the single figures at the next election. That will set them in good stead for the next election. Not only will it allow them to break Ofcom's little oligarchy, but it will also mean they start to be taken seriously as a party when you can become an MP, and more and higher calibre candidates will come forward.
Morning again all. Have to say that after fewer than 4 hours sleep I'm feeling a bit jaded. I think the Conservative result is probably more impressive after some time to think about it. Mercer hasn't been in the national news much but it stretches credulity to imagine that in the constituency plenty of people were not aware that his dodginess was responsible for the election. The candidate list was longer than usual which will probably pull share from everyone so to end up only 9% down on 2010 is impressive.
The Lib Dems must be worried that their vote share is cratering in such spectacular ways in many areas. I have been assuming 30-40 holds as I expected the Lib Dem share to be more resilient in the GE. I'm beginning now to wonder if the results won't be even worse for the yellows than anyone imagines. I also think we need to think in terms of how bad it is and how long it takes to recover.
I am of the opinion now that the Lib Dems [ under Clegg ] will end up with less than 20 seats. All this talk about they hold on where they are strong is piffle. In Kingston, there vote went down by 13%. They held the Council and Ed Davey is the MP>
Run your finger down the LibDem seats and find over 37 realistic losses to take you to under 20. It'll take some doing.
The LibDems will take some comfort that: (a) in some (not all) of their traditional strongholds, their local electoral performance remains extremely impressive, (b) the rise of UKIP means that 'bar' for winning seats is probably 3-4% lower than it was, (c) the possibility that they recover somewhat (13-14%) towards the elections, and (d) tactical voting may return come May 2015.
All that being said, it is likely the LibDems will have only perhaps half the voters in 2015 that they did in 2010. That pretty much ensures that - no matter how efficiently distributed their vote - they will lose substantial numbers of seats.
If I were a betting man (which I am, come to mention it), I would estimate Libs 12-14%, with 25-30 seats. I'd estimate UKIP on 14-16%, and no seats. (I think the anti-UKIP tactical voting is going to kill them.)
UKIP may be a flash in the pan - I'm genuinely unsure. However, it's worth remembering that It did take Labour several elections to achieve a significant parliamentary presence.
UKIP will remain strong and growing as long as immigration continues at silly levels. The main thing driving people to UKIP is that British people increasingly feel cultural alienation in their home country. Theresa May's failure to tackled immigration could be the ruin of the Tory party.
@JackW Challenge accepted! I'll have a look once I've done the weekly beer order and write a stiff letter of complaint to Shatwest and report back with 37 lib dem losses
There have been thirty three amendments to the US constitution.
Not to mention that they're still using their judiciary and legislature to hammer out what those amendments actually mean in practice (cf. same-sex marriage and section 1 of amendment 14).
@RochdalePioneers UKIP got a decentish showing however all evening on twitter and elsewhere the impression they were giving was they'd get 30% or more. All campaign they'd been hyping their chances, they raised expectations then couldn't meet them.
Also I'd remind you of the Norwich North by election in 2009. UKIP garnered 12% in that election (not 26% admittedly) the next year it had dropped to 4%. Two thirds of their share went south in a year
Charles is there not an appropriate glass case somewhere you can display it at home and I assume there is a younger person within the family to whom you can give it at an appropriate time. In the event of no issue, I have decided upon a nephew who will be my sole heir. Can't stand the thought of back biting among some of the younger generation in order to secure my loot having seen it in my mother's generation set members of the family against one another.
Possibly, although we are in a smallish flat, so not much space! I shall have to move it to Temple Place I suspect.
I agree on the risk of back biting - although you need to manage expectations up front / explain the rationale and get buy-in. Otherwise you could divide your nephew from the rest of his family which wouldn't be good. We were fortunate in that there was a fairly natural three way split between different roles and responsibilities, but even that hasn't been entirely plain sailing.
The high point for me last night was Matt Hancock's eye roll at Diane James' latest idiocy.
Seriously 60 UKIP gains at the next election.
UKIP remind me of Saddam Hussein, promising the mother of all battles and then delivering the mother of all retreats.
I'm wondering if the General Election could be UKIP's Watling St, yes they've been causing everyone a scare set fire to a few settlements etc but perhaps just perhaps they're overreaching and about to run into the discipline and superior tactics of the professionals
and more and higher calibre candidates will come forward.
And perhaps a higher calibre leader who doesn't spend the nights before important elections boozing it up on the Med with dollybirds ?
All of this supports my theory that Labour may well do worse in terms of the efficiency of their vote in 2015 than they did in 2010. The machine that was so good at delivering votes where it really counted is looking a bit rusty and underpowered. Money and spats with the unions may be a part of the reason but the leadership is clearly an issue.
I would have thought that the Newark result suggests that Labour's vote in 2015 will be even more efficient than in 2010, as the Labour party retreats from all but ~350 seats.
However, I now begin to seriously consider the possibility that Labour's national share of the vote will be down on 2010. I note that in Newark the combined Labour and Lib Dem vote share was lower than Labour's 2010 vote share.
A large vote for UKIP in 2015, say ~15% nationwide, would increase the efficiency of the Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win a majority with a lower share of the vote than in 2010, if Labour and the Lib Dems do badly enough.
The swing to Labour in this by-election was a miserable 2.1%. The next election will be very traumatic for the Labour party.
I have been saying for quite a while that the UKIP vote must mean that the tories' vote will be more efficient. Their huge majorities in safe seats will take a dent although, as we have seen in Newark, remain relatively safe. If they maintain their share of the vote overall that means more votes where it counts.
I still find the idea that Miliband could do even worse than Brown hard to credit so I expect a higher turnout for Labour in their safe seats but you could be right.
Assuming Scotland vote to stay in the Union, then it seems likely that Labour will lose votes in 2015 in Scotland - they did freakishly well there in 2010.
In England, Miliband is going to provide psephological evidence for the power of incumbency - that helped Brown to some extent in 2010 - and go some way to rehabilitate Brown's electoral record by comparison.
Ed Miliband: the only man who can make Gordon Brown look good.
Good performance by Labour in Clydesdale yesterday. Poor SNP run continues.
The SNP to LAB swing in Clydesdale South yesterday was 2.9 points. A very stable and respectable performance by a governing party mid-term.
Morning again all. Have to say that after fewer than 4 hours sleep I'm feeling a bit jaded. I think the Conservative result is probably more impressive after some time to think about it. Mercer hasn't been in the national news much but it stretches credulity to imagine that in the constituency plenty of people were not aware that his dodginess was responsible for the election. The candidate list was longer than usual which will probably pull share from everyone so to end up only 9% down on 2010 is impressive.
The Lib Dems must be worried that their vote share is cratering in such spectacular ways in many areas. I have been assuming 30-40 holds as I expected the Lib Dem share to be more resilient in the GE. I'm beginning now to wonder if the results won't be even worse for the yellows than anyone imagines. I also think we need to think in terms of how bad it is and how long it takes to recover.
I am of the opinion now that the Lib Dems [ under Clegg ] will end up with less than 20 seats. All this talk about they hold on where they are strong is piffle. In Kingston, there vote went down by 13%. They held the Council and Ed Davey is the MP>
Run your finger down the LibDem seats and find over 37 realistic losses to take you to under 20. It'll take some doing.
I agree with that assessment Jack although there could be some surprises on the night where we are not expecting but I would say the LDs will hang onto at least 35-40 seats
The latest ARSE general election projection for the LibDems is 32 seats. A new full projection with the first "JackW Dozen" listing will be published on Tuesday.
Optimistic. 20 at best
Would you then name the 37 losses ?
Edit - Your reply noted .... good luck on both counts.
The French press are in absolutely no doubt which head of state is the star of today's ceremonies......
An extraordinary woman.
Both the Queen and Prince Philip served in the Second World War (she in a minor way, he in a much more substantial way). For us it's history. For them it's a memory.
I once read an insightful piece mentioning how the Second World War was a memory of national pride for only two countries in Europe: the UK and Malta.
In terms of war myths, I'm always amazed that France got away with portraying the French State as an imposition of the Nazis. In fact the conversion to an autocratic regime was decided by the French elite before they even sought terms. Reynauld was actually a man of principle, having the same steadfast attitude as Churchill in wanting to continue the fight against evil, but found his position untenable, due to the ethical weakness of those around him. The fact that after his arrest, you had to get down to a junior minister like De Gaulle to find someone to continue the struggle showed how morally corrupt the French government was.
The French press are in absolutely no doubt which head of state is the star of today's ceremonies......
An extraordinary woman.
Both the Queen and Prince Philip served in the Second World War (she in a minor way, he in a much more substantial way). For us it's history. For them it's a memory.
For us it's a connection. A really important one. I wonder how we'll all deal with the 21st century monarchy when it arrives.
The monarchy will do what it always has done. Move and change as needed. That's one of the strengths of our (unwritten) constitution.
Unlike the US, where they're clinging to their Constitution like its some holy relic which can never change.
Apart from the 27 ratified amendments, you mean?
(I quite like the fact that the 27th Amendment was sent to the states for consideration in 1789 and received final approval in 1992. That's what I call due consideration!)
Morning again all. Have to say that after fewer than 4 hours sleep I'm feeling a bit jaded. I think the Conservative result is probably more impressive after some time to think about it. Mercer hasn't been in the national news much but it stretches credulity to imagine that in the constituency plenty of people were not aware that his dodginess was responsible for the election. The candidate list
I agree with that assessment Jack although there could be some surprises on the night where we are not expecting but I would say the LDs will hang onto at least 35-40 seats
The latest ARSE general election projection for the LibDems is 32 seats. A new full projection with the first "JackW Dozen" listing will be published on Tuesday.
Jack I have been trying to find your JackWDozen. Can I trouble you to relist them please?
@RochdalePioneers UKIP got a decentish showing however all evening on twitter and elsewhere the impression they were giving was they'd get 30% or more. All campaign they'd been hyping their chances, they raised expectations then couldn't meet them.
Also I'd remind you of the Norwich North by election in 2009. UKIP garnered 12% in that election (not 26% admittedly) the next year it had dropped to 4%. Two thirds of their share went south in a year
A lot has changed since 2009! Again, comparing apples with oranges. But you're right that the kippers are rubbish at managing their message.
That's seriously impressive oratory. Verbs and everything ;-)
Seriously, though, I hadn't realised that "United Nations" was used as a term during the war.
As an aside, my parents have just given me a coin that Churchill had inscribed with "Salute the Great Coalition". Rather at a loss what to do with it: it was a sarky jab by them; it's quite a clunky piece of metal; but it has sentimental value (it sat on my grandfather's desk for years). Any suggestions what to do with it?
Charles is there not an appropriate glass case somewhere you can display it at home and I assume there is a younger person within the family to whom you can give it at an appropriate time. In the event of no issue, I have decided upon a nephew who will be my sole heir. Can't stand the thought of back biting among some of the younger generation in order to secure my loot having seen it in my mother's generation set members of the family against one another.
Charles, keep it for now and send it to Ed if he forms a coalition next year.
The French press are in absolutely no doubt which head of state is the star of today's ceremonies......
An extraordinary woman.
Both the Queen and Prince Philip served in the Second World War (she in a minor way, he in a much more substantial way). For us it's history. For them it's a memory.
For us it's a connection. A really important one. I wonder how we'll all deal with the 21st century monarchy when it arrives.
The monarchy will do what it always has done. Move and change as needed. That's one of the strengths of our (unwritten) constitution.
Unlike the US, where they're clinging to their Constitution like its some holy relic which can never change.
There have been thirty three amendments to the US constitution.
I disagreed at the time (I'd already piled on the Conservatives). But our host had logic.
Labour seem to have decided, like flighty cleaners, that there are some things that they just won't do. They won't do suburban seats in the south. They won't do market towns in the east Midlands. Sooner or later they're going to have to decide when they are going to join the fray.
Labour do not have the money the Tories have. We will fight 105 seats. And they are looking OK.
One nation Labour, but the one nation starts north of the Severn and the Wash?
Pathetic! How about London where Labour dominate. You think Labour should have wasted money on a seat it could not win? Don't pursue a career as an election strategist.
It was a poor result for Labour. The more important issue, though, is whether it actually tells us much about what will happen next year in the constituencies in which the election will be decided. Newark is not one of those. What we can conclude safely is that labour is not going to win a big majority and that any kind of majority is highly unlikely. But for me the big takeaway is that there could well be an anti-UKIP tactical vote emerging. If that is the case it will undoubtedly help the Tories.
I am not sure Labour should be as downheartened by the result as some are claiming. Again as I set out several weeks ago this seat was and is incredibly difficult for Labour to win because of the fall out from Fiona Jones' time as MP.
The French press are in absolutely no doubt which head of state is the star of today's ceremonies......
An extraordinary woman.
Both the Queen and Prince Philip served in the Second World War (she in a minor way, he in a much more substantial way). For us it's history. For them it's a memory.
I once read an insightful piece mentioning how the Second World War was a memory of national pride for only two countries in Europe: the UK and Malta.
I would have thought Russia would have as well. The things you learn on PB
Well done to Donna Hood for increasing the Scottish Tory vote by 7.6% yesterday.
Hate to be a pedant, but the SCON vote rose by 7.6 points, not by 7.6 percent.
(In percentage terms the SCON rise was much more impressive: 73%.)
Incidentally, before any Tories get too excited, it is worth noting that 75 fewer voters voted SCON in this ward than in 2007, one of the worst years in SCON history.
Dr Eion Clarke tweets: 1993 Christchurch By-Election. Labour
a) Finished 3rd b) Lost 9.4% of their votes
But Labour still went on to record the 1997 Landslide.
Isn't the power of self-delusion to make people look at data selectively a wondrous thing? Political punters in particular should be very grateful to it.
Err, yes, Dr Eion, Labour did indeed get a landslide after the Christchurch By-Election. Four years later. Under a different leader. That new leader being Tony Blair. Who had transformed the party in the intervening period.
Now that I have calmed down a bit about how lamentably poorly Labour did in the Eden* by-election a minor observation on the Lib Dems.
In 2010 the Lib Dems were very notable in not losing a single deposit, anywhere in the country. In 2015 it is likely that they will lose most of the deposits in constituencies where they are currently third or lower, or are second to a non-Tory party - and even then they might lose some of those.
They could lose as many as 400 deposits, which would cost them £200,000. Even if they managed to hold half of these deposits they're still staring at a loss of £100,000 on deposits alone.
* I earlier mistakenly referred to the constituency by its old name of Newark, but it has, of course, now been renamed Eden after the country house Eden Hall which is situated in the constituency.
Comments
Look at Sutton..they cleaned up T the locals and there is no reason to think they won't hold onto their 2 MPs unless the electorate decide to want a Tory majority which I would be surprised at round here.
I went to a couple of council induction events last night and I thought I was at a sixth form college such is the youth of the majority of cllrs from the LDs now most of whom work for either Lib Dem Central office or as researchers for Brake and Burstow.
I presume this it the same in Eastleigh and Watford...
They truly are refreshed and ready to sweep back to power. All this 97 stuff on different boundaries is dubious form the Blues - just concentrate on the main opposition losing % votes vs their disastrous results in 2010 (as Ashworth put that last night)
2) Even with different seat boundaries, it was winnable with labour in 1997., (Railings and Thrasher tested the boundary difference, and labour would have got within 600).
The PB Kinnocks seem to be thrashing around a bit this morning...
Liz Kendall is one of the new Labour MPs who thinks widely and is prepared accept views that are not normally within the Labour thought spectrum. Have had some very interesting lunches with her.
WRT the Cons effort at Newark, for them it must have been very difficult to judge how much of UKIP's EUROs momentum would be carried forward into this by-election. So it would have been important to stop that momentum and if possible set it back into reverse gear (or for the Cons to regain some of their deserters). It will remain to be seen whether that objective has been gained for the longer term - perhaps a good public row by Cameron with the EU is required and a few wins by May over the ECHR.
Not a single mention here today of the fact that the result in Newark could be taken as showing that UKIP takes twice as many votes from the Conservatives as it does from Labour, but of course that doesn't fit the "UKIP are more of a danger to Labour" hysteria we've had here for the last 2 years.
You think Labour should have wasted money on a seat it could not win?
Don't pursue a career as an election strategist.
Always blasé and never in power
Of course there are counters to my broad brushstrokes because of the heavy public sector employment in those areas, the Labour heritage vote and the 'ethnic' effect in Scotland and Wales ie Scots , and to a lesser extent Welsh, thinking of themselves different to the 'English' UKIP.
A lot of politics is about momentum. At the moment it’s the Tories who have it. Not quite the Big Mo, but a Moderate Mo that’s growing.......But, as I said at the start, politics is about momentum. Our Coalition partners have it. We don’t. Time’s running out to re-gain it.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/newark-byelection-tories-win-well-ukip-falls-short-labour-dips-lib-dems-collapse-40714.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
One leaps out.
Middle class private sector = Conservative
Public sector + ethnic minorities = Labour
WWC private sector = UKIP
They would rather have mountain and cobblestone stage helpers than a chance of winning the only time trial.
Must be gutting to miss the 3 stages in Uk..
SNP history: On this day in 1944 Britain joined the US in invading France in one of President Obama's illegal wars. #indyref
Con/UKIP voters should take note of this result to make sure they vote Conservative in the General Election
Labour result is probably explained by the rather cynical ploy to not fight hard here in order to hope that UKIP could win so that the UKIP momentum could be used to take TOry/Lab marginal by splitting the right. At least that failed!! (and Labour should be ashamed)
We all knew that Labour is pursuing a 35% strategy in 2015.
But what has been revealed is Labour's utter disdain, in some cases hatred, for the 65%.
I don't see any reason why Labour will change this mentality in government, which will very quickly see the Eds become hated in return.
"Newark? NEWARK?? You tell that David guy that if I ain't booked out of JFK, I ain't flying nowhere...."
I am not so sure. With Con, Lab and UKIP , all in the 20's and LD in single figures, the Baxter computer would over heat.
The Tories could lose virtually the whole of Essex and Kent.
On the important day, I am contemplating the death of my late mothers favourite brother, something she never really got over.
In the grand scheme of things his name is hardly remembered, but they were the ones who died to make someone else's plan work.
Compared with forecasts and expectations, that was a stonking performance by the Tories. The boost to morale (and the fact that all those bussed-in young activists will have gained campaigning experience and feel part of a great success) could be quite a significant factor in how things develop.
Objectively a good performance by UKIP, but good is not good enough when you've talked about 'earthquakes'. What in heaven's name were they doing when they chose Helmer as their candidate???
As for Labour: dire. Absolutely dire. What happened to those LD->Lab switchers?
The LibDems: ouch.
Overall, this looks to me like one of those classic by-elections of the past where a party of protest got a chunk of votes in a safe seat. The only thing which is different is that, in recent years, it has been the Liberals/LibDems who've temporarily picked up those protest votes. Now it's UKIP.
For this year, LDs have been hemorrhaging 65%-70% of their 2010 VI to other parties. So what are the implications for incumbency?
Seriously 60 UKIP gains at the next election.
UKIP remind me of Saddam Hussein, promising the mother of all battles and then delivering the mother of all retreats.
Momentum is still with UKIP and I stand by my prediction of double figures share of the vote (easily beating the Lib Dems) and 1-2 seats at the next GE.
Although you are right on the specific by-election, there is a macro battle: Labour's position as the national challenger to the Tories, government in waiting etc, etc. On it's own does Newark matter: of course not. As part of an overall narrative - especially given that Labour's share of the vote actually declined - that should be much more troubling.
It leads to the conclusion that (1) Miliband doesn't attract votes - that essentially a vote for Labour is an anti-Toy vote. That's not a USP because of UKIP (2) there is the potential for tactical voting by Labour/LibDems for the Tories if they see UKIP as a major challenger and (3) that Labour may be somewhat complacent. There are ways you can fight a by-election cheaply.
BUT
Brad sounded absolutely gutted this morning on the radio. It sounded like he really wanted to ride Le Tour, especially as it starts in Britain. He would have had a very good shot at the Time Trial near the end, and his diesel engine would have been excellent for working low gradient hills and the flat, need to get Chris back on the pack in an echelon stage ? Bradley is as good as anybody out there for that.
Chris needs help on the cobbles ? Bradley is a decent enough cobbles rider.
Le Tour goes tits up, Chris crashes out and Sky haven't won a stage ? Brad is a great shot for the Time Trial.
He as good as said he was leaving Sky and I think he could very well head off to another team... Orica Green Edge would be the favourites in a betting market, as they have no GC contenders (With enough TT in a route he can still win GC), and perhaps BMC second favourites. I can imagine Garmin Sharp also being interested too perhaps. Who would blame him ? I think a change would be the best thing now for Brad.
An error by Brailsford to leave him out I think.
However my lasting impression of this one is :
Con - Better than expected.
UKIP - Worse than expected
Lab - Expected little and did worse.
LibDem - No expectation and worse than no good
Con28, Lab 25.3, LD 6, Others 40.7 and I get
Labour largest party. 29 short.
Labour's vote % fell 20.8% from Brown's 2010 meltdown floor
Tory's vote % fell just 16.3% from Brown's 2010 meltdown ceiling
Maths is great innit.
From just be fore the results...
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
18% for lab is a real wounder.
Reply to @MrHarryCole
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 8h
@MrHarryCole Don't think it will be that low.
Unlike the US, where they're clinging to their Constitution like its some holy relic which can never change.
Labour simply shouldn't have been in a position to lose share. Does it necessarily mean anything in context for next year? Of course not, but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
Scotland is a different country ....
But not in the YES context !!
Labour have something about electricity bills.
Labour are no longer a serious national party - they are a special interest group.
People express surprise at the number of young campaigners the Tories put on the streets of Newark. I have been telling you for months to ignore the notion that paid up party membership is somhow an indication of strength on the ground. Young people now don't "join" the way older generations did. They dip in and dip out as suits them. In Scotland the reason we have seen our vote share rise over the past 2 years is because we now have a growing team of young campaigners who will happily spend one weekend in the Borders and the next weekend in Aberdeenshire. We are also seeing some excellent young candidates selected in open primaries etc who will give the LibDems especially and also Labour and the SNP a run for their money next year.
Overrated fool with a few minor victories, his arrogance sees his team get shellacked.
UKIP winning the Euros was their Cannae. Sounds impressive but not really that great when you think about it.
Farage = Hannibal
When you have a change this large, to compare before and after results and say its like for like is at best disingenuous and at worst fantasy. Yes the Tories won the seat when some suggested (hoped) they wouldn't, and thats clearly a great result for them. But They still lost 17% of their vote in a seat where UKIP came from nowhere to take a quarter share. ANd thats having thrown every resource they had at the seat on a scale thats completely impossible to repeat across key marginals in the GE.
So, like Eastleigh for the LibDems, take this as the apogee for the Tories. In how many seats they either need to win or to defend does a -17% for them and a +hundreds% for UKIP lose them the seat on a swing to Labour of 2%. Then strip out the 4 visits from the PM and the army of activists and intensify the swing - how many more seats go?
SOUTH LANARKSHIRE - Clydesdale South (SNP resigned)
1st preferences were
Lab 1492
SNP 1170
Con 659
UKIP 233
Green 104
Percentages
Lab 40.7 down 3.6 %
SNP 31.9 down 9.4%
Con 18.0 plus 7.6%
UKIP 6.4 plus 2.4%
Green 2.9 plus 2.9%
2012 - Lab 1149/875, SNP 1625/313, Con 487, UKIP 199
2007 - Lab 1709/1245, SNP 1156/1148, Con 734, Grn 183
Donna HOOD (Scottish Conservative and Unionist)
Donald MACKAY (UKIP)
Gordon MUIR (Scottish Labour Party)
George SNEDDON (Scottish National Party (SNP))
Ruth THOMAS (Scottish Green Party)
Well done to Donna Hood for increasing the Scottish Tory vote by 7.6% yesterday.
All that being said, it is likely the LibDems will have only perhaps half the voters in 2015 that they did in 2010. That pretty much ensures that - no matter how efficiently distributed their vote - they will lose substantial numbers of seats.
If I were a betting man (which I am, come to mention it), I would estimate Libs 12-14%, with 25-30 seats. I'd estimate UKIP on 14-16%, and no seats. (I think the anti-UKIP tactical voting is going to kill them.)
Challenge accepted! I'll have a look once I've done the weekly beer order and write a stiff letter of complaint to Shatwest and report back with 37 lib dem losses
UKIP got a decentish showing however all evening on twitter and elsewhere the impression they were giving was they'd get 30% or more. All campaign they'd been hyping their chances, they raised expectations then couldn't meet them.
Also I'd remind you of the Norwich North by election in 2009. UKIP garnered 12% in that election (not 26% admittedly) the next year it had dropped to 4%. Two thirds of their share went south in a year
A poor result for Labour, and an excellent one for the Conservatives. Bang average for UKIP.
CON 39.5
LAB 23.8
LD 4.6
UKIP 27
Was what I worked out from the various polls !
I agree on the risk of back biting - although you need to manage expectations up front / explain the rationale and get buy-in. Otherwise you could divide your nephew from the rest of his family which wouldn't be good. We were fortunate in that there was a fairly natural three way split between different roles and responsibilities, but even that hasn't been entirely plain sailing.
a) Finished 3rd
b) Lost 9.4% of their votes
But Labour still went on to record the 1997 Landslide.
All set for the GE in 2018 then!
Edit - Your reply noted .... good luck on both counts.
In terms of war myths, I'm always amazed that France got away with portraying the French State as an imposition of the Nazis. In fact the conversion to an autocratic regime was decided by the French elite before they even sought terms. Reynauld was actually a man of principle, having the same steadfast attitude as Churchill in wanting to continue the fight against evil, but found his position untenable, due to the ethical weakness of those around him. The fact that after his arrest, you had to get down to a junior minister like De Gaulle to find someone to continue the struggle showed how morally corrupt the French government was.
(I quite like the fact that the 27th Amendment was sent to the states for consideration in 1789 and received final approval in 1992. That's what I call due consideration!)
BTW, did the LibDeads retain their deposit?
Lib Dems 5/6
UKIP 5/6
2015 Labour leader - Ed Miliband.
Compare and contrast....
The things you learn on PB
(In percentage terms the SCON rise was much more impressive: 73%.)
Incidentally, before any Tories get too excited, it is worth noting that 75 fewer voters voted SCON in this ward than in 2007, one of the worst years in SCON history.
Err, yes, Dr Eion, Labour did indeed get a landslide after the Christchurch By-Election. Four years later. Under a different leader. That new leader being Tony Blair. Who had transformed the party in the intervening period.
I suspect more has stayed the same than changed.
In 2010 the Lib Dems were very notable in not losing a single deposit, anywhere in the country. In 2015 it is likely that they will lose most of the deposits in constituencies where they are currently third or lower, or are second to a non-Tory party - and even then they might lose some of those.
They could lose as many as 400 deposits, which would cost them £200,000. Even if they managed to hold half of these deposits they're still staring at a loss of £100,000 on deposits alone.
* I earlier mistakenly referred to the constituency by its old name of Newark, but it has, of course, now been renamed Eden after the country house Eden Hall which is situated in the constituency.
The SNP to LAB by-election swing yesterday was 2.9 points.
The fomer was a triumph for the Conservatives whereas the latter was a disaster for the SNP.
Fact is stranger than fiction here in PB Tory land.