Watching the very emotional D-Day anniversary coverage from Normandy today, I was struck that it would have been an odd day indeed to be commenting upon a UKIP win at Newark...
If ever there is a day to feel European, today is it.
I can't believe that there are people who don't think this result was awful for Labour.
We can see how bad it was by comparing the Newark constituency with some of the seats that Labour lost in 2010, such as South Dorset.
They are not so different. The constituency includes Weymouth, which is roughly the same size as Newark-on-Trent. The Conservative majority is a little smaller in South Dorset, but it is pretty substantial. There is a large Lib Dem vote in third place. UKIP picked up a couple of thousand votes but lost their deposit.
Will Labour give up on South Dorset as they have surrendered in Newark?
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.
Also the demographics and boundaries have moved against them since then, in this constituency as it is now potential support for Labour is very limited.
The Tories threw a lot at it because they couldn't chance a disaster against UKIP at this stage, it has worked but I think the emotion at the top of the party will be relief rather than elation.
I really think we need to look carefully at the Lib Dems because there must be a vote share point at which the dam breaks. Their current poll shares are in single figures, they have been decimated in MEP terms and taken a hammering in local government. There has to come a point when retaining 30-40 seats is just not feasible.
Watching the very emotional D-Day anniversary coverage from Normandy today, I was struck that it would have been an odd day indeed to be commenting upon a UKIP win at Newark...
If ever there is a day to feel European, today is it.
If you mean 'European' in the sense of compassion, goodwill to all men, keeping peace with the neighbours, democracies don't go to war with each other, etc - then I'm with you.
If you mean 'European' in the sense of one emerging country centrally run with no demos and so no democracy, de haut en bas elitism/corporatism, an all powerful state and everybody has to do what Germany wants - then maybe less so!
2003: Prime Minister Tony Blair leads Britain into war with Iraq based on filmsy "evidence" 2013: Leader of the Opposition Ed Milliband refuses to support Britain going to war with Syria based on flimsy "evidence" despite strident demands for war from Middle East "Peace Envoy" Tony Blair
Watching the very emotional D-Day anniversary coverage from Normandy today, I was struck that it would have been an odd day indeed to be commenting upon a UKIP win at Newark...
If ever there is a day to feel European, today is it.
Peter Allen on Radio5 in France this morning, was excellent, really from the heart. It sounded as uncomposed as I have heard him: "the boys...they were just boys...we should look at our own children and then think of them with rifles thrust into their hands...just boys..."
Is it a fact that Labour took a strategic decision that UKIP were only a threat to Conservative success and therefore ran a half hearted campaign in Newark? Losing vote share in a by election when they started from 2nd place just increases the pressure of EdM. Why would he have wanted to take that risk unless he thought the im was to let UKIP have an unchallenged fight against the Conservatives? Yesterdays by election has just added t othe problems for EdM.
The Lib Dems also seem to have given up in places where they have no current MP, even where they had a strong 3rd place.
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.
All set for the GE in 2018 then!
The swing from Conservative to Labour in Christchurch was 11.4%. In Newark it was 2.1%. That's one of the big differences.
The other is that the Labour tactical voting in Christchurch was to benefit the Lib Dems, the party made up of the SDP - who used to be in Labour - and the Liberals - who did so much to create the welfare state.
In Newark, it appears that former and potential Labour voters split between voting for the Conservative Party - the baby-eaters of Labour B-movies/Party Election Broadcasts - and UKIP - who some in Labour regard as being crypto-fascists.
The two are not remotely comparable. Labour will lose in 2015.
Noticeable from last night's BBC This Week programme is how the Lib Dem representative in the by election part gave up after just over an hour. What was the point of electing a Deputy Leader in Malcolm Bruce, if is not up to defending his party?
The Lib Dems deserted the programme and effectively acknowledge that UKIP are the real 3rd party. Next time the LDs moan about a lack of media coverage, Bruce's act of deserting a politics show should be thrown back at them.
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!)
They've passed quite a few but the big things, like a directly-elected president who decides when to go to war, have mostly been done extra-constitutionally by institutional mission creep. I think the EU will evolve the same way, since it now has too many veto points to make significant treaty revisions.
2003: Prime Minister Tony Blair leads Britain into war with Iraq based on filmsy "evidence" 2013: Leader of the Opposition Ed Milliband refuses to support Britain going to war with Syria based on flimsy "evidence" despite strident demands for war from Middle East "Peace Envoy" Tony Blair
Yes, Ed's rising popularity and the way in which he has massively boosted Labour's support since 2010 was very clear in last night's results. OK, they didn't win, but they increased their vote share by 22 poi... oops, hang on, I'm looking at the wrong line...
Noticeable from last night's BBC This Week programme is how the Lib Dem representative in the by election part gave up after just over an hour. What was the point of electing a Deputy Leader in Malcolm Bruce, if is not up to defending his party?
The Lib Dems deserted the programme and effectively acknowledge that UKIP are the real 3rd party. Next time the LDs moan about a lack of media coverage, Bruce's act of deserting a politics show should be thrown back at them.
Noticeable from last night's BBC This Week programme is how the Lib Dem representative in the by election part gave up after just over an hour. What was the point of electing a Deputy Leader in Malcolm Bruce, if is not up to defending his party?
The Lib Dems deserted the programme and effectively acknowledge that UKIP are the real 3rd party. Next time the LDs moan about a lack of media coverage, Bruce's act of deserting a politics show should be thrown back at them.
He had a funeral today he needed to get to in his constituency. So I wouldn't blame him for having to leave to make the journey. I'd blame the Lib Dem media team for not finding a spokesman who could stay.
As well as the the swing of the votes, it is interesting to see the change in vote as a percentage of the previous vote:
Candidate Relative Change
Roger Helmer (UKIP) 578.27% Robert Jenrick (Con) -16.38% Michael Payne (Lab) -20.82% David Watts (LD) -87.05%
While UKIP clearly win this with an almost 6x improvement, it is also interesting to see Labour do worse than Conservatives as we are measuring the votes relative to the GE.
That doesn't seem good at all for Labour as the official opposition.
One winner from last night was Grant Shapps. Curry, canoodling and campaigning - what more could young hacks want?
Being able to mount a mobile and effective by-election campaign has been a Tory weakness for a generation and Grant has to take the credit for putting that right.
Next stop, GE15, Grant. Come on, boy, you know it's your chance to make history!
Might be updated in Austria (next race) or Silverstone (the race after). They need to bring more upgrades, otherwise they'll risk losing their fourth place in the Constructors to Williams or McLaren, and lose any opportunity to close up on Ferrari in third.
Force India does, however, have a pretty good record of developing a car throughout a season, which is a bit odd as it's never been more than a leading midfield team. It's also got a strong driver lineup (in stark contrast to Sauber, who a few years ago had Kobayashi and Perez and now have to make do with Sutil and Gutierrez). Force India are in danger of growing into a big beast.
I can't believe that there are people who don't think this result was awful for Labour.
We can see how bad it was by comparing the Newark constituency with some of the seats that Labour lost in 2010, such as South Dorset.
They are not so different. The constituency includes Weymouth, which is roughly the same size as Newark-on-Trent. The Conservative majority is a little smaller in South Dorset, but it is pretty substantial. There is a large Lib Dem vote in third place. UKIP picked up a couple of thousand votes but lost their deposit.
Will Labour give up on South Dorset as they have surrendered in Newark?
Labour gained 3 seats in the May local elections , 2 from Conservative and 1 from Independent , the answer is NO
'Again, it was all rubbish. Their campaign consisted of small groups of men driving around in Land Rovers bellowing at people through megaphones. Not only did their People’s Army not show up, their leader didn’t bother to show up, save for a single fleeting visit.'
The latter being too busy trousering speaking fees, and assisting hot blondes back to their hotel. It's easy to see where his priorities lie.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
You know how the Labour share in Newark dropping by 21% shows how they are guaranteed to lose the GE? You know how the Tories share in Newark dropping by 16% shows how they are guaranteed to win the GE? You know how the UKIP share in Newark growing by 578% proves that they will frack off and vanish in the next 11 months?
Noticeable from last night's BBC This Week programme is how the Lib Dem representative in the by election part gave up after just over an hour. What was the point of electing a Deputy Leader in Malcolm Bruce, if is not up to defending his party? The Lib Dems deserted the programme and effectively acknowledge that UKIP are the real 3rd party. Next time the LDs moan about a lack of media coverage, Bruce's act of deserting a politics show should be thrown back at them.
He had a funeral today he needed to get to in his constituency. So I wouldn't blame him for having to leave to make the journey. I'd blame the Lib Dem media team for not finding a spokesman who could stay.
Thanks for explanation on Bruce. Understandable, but convenient for the Lib Dems to put up someone who had a prior engagement. Things are so bad, that they cannot find anyone willing to represent them on national tv. UKIP have no MPs, very few paid staff, yet always find representatives.
@JackW 37 Lib Dem Losses. Everything as far as Southport on the UKPR defence list with the exception of Eastleigh, plus Norfolk North, Twixkenham and Danny's seat, and Mings. So they can afford to hold 3 of the lesser targets and still be under twenty. This is based on them scoring 8% at the GE. So Mote It Be!
Today's YouGov had fieldwork on Wednesday and Thursday. If we apply the swings in that poll to the Newark 2010 result then the result of the Newark by-election based on these national swings would have been (with the difference in the result from this national opinion poll swing in brackets):
Conservative 43.6% (+1.4 better in reality) Labour 26.8% (-9.1) UKIP 18% (+7.9) Lib Dems 7.3% (-4.7) Green 3.3% (-0.6)
You would expect that supporters of an incumbent government would be less motivated in a by-election, and for the swing against them to be consequently exaggerated, but the Tory share of the vote was higher in this by-election than predicted by the current opinion polls.
How can this be? There must have been tactical votes from potential Labour and Lib Dem voters for the Conservatives. That was not part of the Labour game plan. Their little game was to have UKIP embarrass the Tories, but the voters aren't interested in Labour's silly little Westminster games.
Who can take Labour seriously now? Decades of tactical voting have now lead to Labour voters tactically voting for Tories, when the Tories are in government. It's a ludicrous state of affairs.
I really think we need to look carefully at the Lib Dems because there must be a vote share point at which the dam breaks. Their current poll shares are in single figures, they have been decimated in MEP terms and taken a hammering in local government. There has to come a point when retaining 30-40 seats is just not feasible.
I'm not convinced it's not feasible, Westminster elections are FPTP. If they were proportional (under STV) the LDs would have won 162 seats instead of 57.
Whether it's local elections, European elections, Scottish elections, referendums (AV) parliamentary by elections, Ed Milliband just doesn't cut the mustard.
The guy's a dud. Labour still have time to get rid...
Labour thought UKIP could win and give Cameron a bloody nose. In the end, UKIP plus Labours risible effort wouldn't have been enough. labour have the political nouse of a gnat.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour. This Newark result should terrify Labour but you seem apathetic and inert.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Do you think Labour should only campaign in winnable seats at the GE next year?
I think that is pretty well the case anyway. Since the heyday of Cecil being party chairman, the amount of campaigning I have seen around here amounts to the square root of sod all
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
You can see the bar charts can't you.
Only the Tories can beat UKIP here, with a big arrow pointing to the Lib Dems saying "The Lib Dems can't win here"
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour. This Newark result should terrify Labour but you seem apathetic and inert.
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
However, it is a reasonable observation to apply to a party that wishes to thrust forward with the argument that we are a rapidly growing popular movement with tremendous momentum behind us.
By implication the expectation should be for advancement in reasonable sized steps in these early stages.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour.
Oh now you're just making stuff up.
That said I have little doubt that Blair would have won a by-election on these boundaries in the run-up to 1997. So we can probably write off the chances of Labour wining a 1997-style landslide next year.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour. This Newark result should terrify Labour but you seem apathetic and inert.
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
If Labour had fought hard in this by-election they could have hoped to derive the following benefits:
1. Improved morale. 2. Better coverage in the media air war. 3. More credibility in terms of being an opposition recovering from a previous election defeat. 4. Experience of campaigning in a Tory seat and winning back voters lost at previous elections - what campaigning messages work?
Excluding the NI by-elections this was only the third government-held seat to come up for a by-election. Labour won Corby with a decent swing when they were still benefiting from the Omnishambles budget. Their performance in Eastleigh could be explained as a tactical defence of the Lib Dems against right-wing opponents.
Newark is something else. Tim used to speak of anti-Tory tactical voting as being the most powerful force in British politics. Yesterday we heard from a Labour MP who said Labour voters were voting tactically for the Tories.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour. This Newark result should terrify Labour but you seem apathetic and inert.
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.
Either your usually well-placed humour chip is malfunctioning today or we've sadly reached the shallow depths of your understanding of electoral politics.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour. This Newark result should terrify Labour but you seem apathetic and inert.
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.
Another false statement . The actual Conservative majority increased by around 10,000 half down to Brown and half the Boundary Commission . Your knowledge of politics is very poor is it not ?
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
just as there will be Tory/Lab driftback for current Kippers I think that there will be NOTA driftback.
At the next election there will be the two parties, with Lab having drifted leftwards but, IMO, still not having caught up with the LDs on the left. If the LDs position themselves as still being left of the Lab/Cons then I think that in the cold light of day people will prefer them as a NOTA.
Sounds counter-intuitive: right wing Kippers => left wing LDs (even with the left's anti-EU stance) but I think that the LDs will be a "safer" NOTA vote come the day, who will be able to continue to restrain the baby-eaters.
Because of course no one is going to trust Lab with the economy ("partly to blame, not learned, might do it again").
The trouble Labour have is that they may well have conserved resources by not doing a proper job in Newark, however they've only fed a terrible narrative for them that they simply aren't doing well enough. I think they should have spent the money myself as now they have a better bank balance but a reinforced negative. A case of money badly unspent.
Nadal's French Open record is a comically lopsided 64-1. I suspect your bet will prove a winner. However, it's worth noting this is the first year he's lost twice on clay prior to the French Open.
Saw a bit of Sharapova and Bouchard the other day. As cunningly predicted, Bouchard's not quite there yet, but she could be a serious competitor for titles in a year or two.
Not really offered any tennis tips this year. Might do for Wimbledon.
How can this be? There must have been tactical votes from potential Labour and Lib Dem voters for the Conservatives. That was not part of the Labour game plan. Their little game was to have UKIP embarrass the Tories, but the voters aren't interested in Labour's silly little Westminster games.
Who can take Labour seriously now? Decades of tactical voting have now lead to Labour voters tactically voting for Tories, when the Tories are in government. It's a ludicrous state of affairs.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour. This Newark result should terrify Labour but you seem apathetic and inert.
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.
Another false statement . The actual Conservative majority increased by around 10,000 half down to Brown and half the Boundary Commission . Your knowledge of politics is very poor is it not ?
After your preposterous prediction that the Greek economy would outperform the UK's in 2013 , I don't think we have to take your opinions very seriously, do we ?
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour. This Newark result should terrify Labour but you seem apathetic and inert.
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.
Either your usually well-placed humour chip is malfunctioning today or we've sadly reached the shallow depths of your understanding of electoral politics.
You must be pleased the Greens beat the Lib Dems !
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"
It is however notable that UKIP appear to be failing to break the 30% barrier - at Eastleigh, in the European elections and now in Newark.
They could still win one or two seats with votes in the high 20's, the Greens won Brighton Pavillion with just 31.3%, and Norwich South was won by the Lib Dems with 29.4%, but if they could get to the 30-35% range then the possibilities widen quite considerably.
Nadal's French Open record is a comically lopsided 64-1. I suspect your bet will prove a winner. However, it's worth noting this is the first year he's lost twice on clay prior to the French Open.
Saw a bit of Sharapova and Bouchard the other day. As cunningly predicted, Bouchard's not quite there yet, but she could be a serious competitor for titles in a year or two.
Not really offered any tennis tips this year. Might do for Wimbledon.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour. This Newark result should terrify Labour but you seem apathetic and inert.
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.
Either your usually well-placed humour chip is malfunctioning today or we've sadly reached the shallow depths of your understanding of electoral politics.
You must be pleased the Greens beat the Lib Dems !
There wasnt a whole lot riding on 5th place last night!
How can this be? There must have been tactical votes from potential Labour and Lib Dem voters for the Conservatives. That was not part of the Labour game plan. Their little game was to have UKIP embarrass the Tories, but the voters aren't interested in Labour's silly little Westminster games.
Who can take Labour seriously now? Decades of tactical voting have now lead to Labour voters tactically voting for Tories, when the Tories are in government. It's a ludicrous state of affairs.
+1
The oh-so-solid 2010 Lib-Dem to Labour switchers weren't quite so solid after-all were they?
With Lab and Lib-Dem voters also going tactically for Conservatives to keep UKIP out, it also appears that Farage is doing Cameron's detoxification of the Tory brand for him,LOL.
Nadal's French Open record is a comically lopsided 64-1. I suspect your bet will prove a winner. However, it's worth noting this is the first year he's lost twice on clay prior to the French Open.
Saw a bit of Sharapova and Bouchard the other day. As cunningly predicted, Bouchard's not quite there yet, but she could be a serious competitor for titles in a year or two.
Not really offered any tennis tips this year. Might do for Wimbledon.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour. This Newark result should terrify Labour but you seem apathetic and inert.
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.
Another false statement . The actual Conservative majority increased by around 10,000 half down to Brown and half the Boundary Commission . Your knowledge of politics is very poor is it not ?
After your preposterous prediction that the Greek economy would outperform the UK's in 2013 , I don't think we have to take your opinions very seriously, do we ?
What have the relative performances of the UK and Greek economies to do with the effect of boundary changes in Newark ? You are wrong simply fess up as I did with pound notes to SeanT .
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
I don't think it says anything about the LibDems as a party. It says something about the remaining LibDem supporters.
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
Anti-UKIP tactical voting is going to be an absolute disaster for the party.
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.
Thanks for the post. Was there anything interesting in the transfers compared with previous elections? I'd think that the referendum campaign may be polarising people into being pro- and anti-SNP so the "no second preference" may be well down?
The Tory on This Week was desperately trying to spin the "Labour won in Newark" line to be repeatedly and firmly put down by Andrew Neil that there had been "substantial boundary changes".
So three things have changed: 1. Newark was won by New Labour, not Labour. Blair won in all kinds of bizarre places that doesn't make them key targets for Labour now the Middle East War Envoy has departed 2. Newark 2014 is far safer for the Tories than Newark 1997 3. The rise and rise of Reggie UKIP
Apart from all that change, Labour getting nowhere near PROVES that Ed is Carp because nothing has changed at all.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
Labour's lack of courage to fight hard in Newark doesn't bode well. Did Ed spend too long working for Gordon Brown? The former PM is much maligned. He should at least take comfort from the fact that he's more popular in Newark than Ed Miliband.
On 2nd thoughts perhaps it was all economic. Labour hasn't got much money and why waste it on Newark when they have next to no chance of winning it in a GE? Strategically it was obvious that the by election mattered more to the Tories and Ukip who would throw the kitchen sink at it. Maybe Labour has better ways to spend its money.
rcs - I'd agree the Lib Dems have effectively been reduced to the anit-Ukip party. The party to protest against the protest party (that doesn't have a single MP). Clegg's destruction of the yellows is almost complete
Mr. Pulpstar, given your avatar one suspects you're thinking more of laying than I am.
For what it's worth, I have a vague memory Sharapova tends to reach finals and lose. She's also lost the first set for the last few rounds. I'd check the 2-1 odds (for either player) if I were betting on that match (which I'm not).
Today really makes you proud to be British (and American, Canadian and all those nations that took part in Operation Neptune)
Indeed, having been to Normandy (20 years ago now), we sailed on the overnight ferry, you get a feel for the whole thing. Some of the beaches you can just walk off of into relatively flat countryside but the tidal variation is huge and so the length of beach can be a few metres or several hundred. Other areas are immediately and obviously more difficult being steeper and more robustly defendable. Some of the air assault positions are much further inland than you'd imagine so the possibility that it could all have gone horribly wrong is greatly increased. We tend to see the Invasion of Western Europe as an inevitable success but when you see the terrain, the size of the invasion front, the distance to sail first, the logistical issues you realise that it could so easily have been the greatest military disaster. That it was a success owes much to those who took part.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.
The Tory on This Week was desperately trying to spin the "Labour won in Newark" line to be repeatedly and firmly put down by Andrew Neil that there had been "substantial boundary changes".
So three things have changed: 1. Newark was won by New Labour, not Labour. Blair won in all kinds of bizarre places that doesn't make them key targets for Labour now the Middle East War Envoy has departed 2. Newark 2014 is far safer for the Tories than Newark 1997 3. The rise and rise of Reggie UKIP
Apart from all that change, Labour getting nowhere near PROVES that Ed is Carp because nothing has changed at all.
Given that in the national opinion polls UKIP take more voters from the Conservatives then the rise of UKIP should make it easier for Labour to grab a seat like Newark when the Tory vote is split.
Right, I checked Ladbrokes (as I've mentioned, my accounts are really lopsided so I often bet with Ladbrokes rather than Betfair now) and have made small bets as follows: To lose the first set and win the match, Sharapova 5.5 Halep win 2-1, 4.5
OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?
I don't think it says anything about the LibDems as a party. It says something about the remaining LibDem supporters.
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
Anti-UKIP tactical voting is going to be an absolute disaster for the party.
Given UKIP's apparent transfer-unfriendliness you'd think Con-Lib-Lab would be up for an evil conspiracy to change the Euro voting system to STV. They should throw that in there with the recall vote thing and present it as another way for the voters to kick out bad individual representatives. (Which it genuinely does provide, although the voters probably wouldn't use it that way.)
Comments
If ever there is a day to feel European, today is it.
UKIP could get 8% and this could still be a winner.
I'd like to know when the Green-LD match bet is coming out.
British scams for British scammers?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/iain-duncan-smith-says-big-issue-magazine-is-helping-uk-benefit-tourists-9492515.html
We can see how bad it was by comparing the Newark constituency with some of the seats that Labour lost in 2010, such as South Dorset.
They are not so different. The constituency includes Weymouth, which is roughly the same size as Newark-on-Trent. The Conservative majority is a little smaller in South Dorset, but it is pretty substantial. There is a large Lib Dem vote in third place. UKIP picked up a couple of thousand votes but lost their deposit.
Will Labour give up on South Dorset as they have surrendered in Newark?
Also the demographics and boundaries have moved against them since then, in this constituency as it is now potential support for Labour is very limited.
The Tories threw a lot at it because they couldn't chance a disaster against UKIP at this stage, it has worked but I think the emotion at the top of the party will be relief rather than elation.
If you mean 'European' in the sense of one emerging country centrally run with no demos and so no democracy, de haut en bas elitism/corporatism, an all powerful state and everybody has to do what Germany wants - then maybe less so!
2013: Leader of the Opposition Ed Milliband refuses to support Britain going to war with Syria based on flimsy "evidence" despite strident demands for war from Middle East "Peace Envoy" Tony Blair
very moving.
The Lib Dems also seem to have given up in places where they have no current MP, even where they had a strong 3rd place.
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12040/9339668/pirelli-nominates-tyres-for-upcoming-gps-in-austria-britain-germany-and-hungary
Soft compound used at 3/4, so performance on that will be important to note. Not sure what's being used in Canada.
The other is that the Labour tactical voting in Christchurch was to benefit the Lib Dems, the party made up of the SDP - who used to be in Labour - and the Liberals - who did so much to create the welfare state.
In Newark, it appears that former and potential Labour voters split between voting for the Conservative Party - the baby-eaters of Labour B-movies/Party Election Broadcasts - and UKIP - who some in Labour regard as being crypto-fascists.
The two are not remotely comparable. Labour will lose in 2015.
The Lib Dems deserted the programme and effectively acknowledge that UKIP are the real 3rd party. Next time the LDs moan about a lack of media coverage, Bruce's act of deserting a politics show should be thrown back at them.
That's why he left early.
That doesn't seem good at all for Labour as the official opposition.
This seat tells us almost nothing about the GE.
I'm surprised one as wise as you fell for the Tory spin.
Curry, canoodling and campaigning - what more could young hacks want?
Being able to mount a mobile and effective by-election campaign has been a Tory weakness for a generation and Grant has to take the credit for putting that right.
Next stop, GE15, Grant. Come on, boy, you know it's your chance to make history!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100275086/newark-by-election-can-we-drop-this-ludicrous-fiction-that-ukip-are-a-real-political-force/
So much for 'One Nation' Labour.
http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews/2014/6/15907.html
Might be updated in Austria (next race) or Silverstone (the race after). They need to bring more upgrades, otherwise they'll risk losing their fourth place in the Constructors to Williams or McLaren, and lose any opportunity to close up on Ferrari in third.
Force India does, however, have a pretty good record of developing a car throughout a season, which is a bit odd as it's never been more than a leading midfield team. It's also got a strong driver lineup (in stark contrast to Sauber, who a few years ago had Kobayashi and Perez and now have to make do with Sutil and Gutierrez). Force India are in danger of growing into a big beast.
Indeed. And I'm really not sure why the Tories think that Labour should have followed their helpful advice to waste resources on an unwinnable seat.
The latter being too busy trousering speaking fees, and assisting hot blondes back to their hotel. It's easy to see where his priorities lie.
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
Its a funny thing PB maths......
37 Lib Dem Losses. Everything as far as Southport on the UKPR defence list with the exception of Eastleigh, plus Norfolk North, Twixkenham and Danny's seat, and Mings.
So they can afford to hold 3 of the lesser targets and still be under twenty.
This is based on them scoring 8% at the GE.
So Mote It Be!
Anthony Wells or the PBTs? You pays your money, you makes your choice.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Conservative 43.6% (+1.4 better in reality)
Labour 26.8% (-9.1)
UKIP 18% (+7.9)
Lib Dems 7.3% (-4.7)
Green 3.3% (-0.6)
You would expect that supporters of an incumbent government would be less motivated in a by-election, and for the swing against them to be consequently exaggerated, but the Tory share of the vote was higher in this by-election than predicted by the current opinion polls.
How can this be? There must have been tactical votes from potential Labour and Lib Dem voters for the Conservatives. That was not part of the Labour game plan. Their little game was to have UKIP embarrass the Tories, but the voters aren't interested in Labour's silly little Westminster games.
Who can take Labour seriously now? Decades of tactical voting have now lead to Labour voters tactically voting for Tories, when the Tories are in government. It's a ludicrous state of affairs.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/may/10/proportional-representation-general-election-2010
FPTP will now help them or at least not discriminate too much against them as their vote share diminishes.
Whether it's local elections, European elections, Scottish elections, referendums (AV) parliamentary by elections, Ed Milliband just doesn't cut the mustard.
The guy's a dud. Labour still have time to get rid...
labour have the political nouse of a gnat.
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
could be interesting
Is Newark UKIP's Thermopylae? A heroic stand but defeated to a man by Xerxes' Tory hordes?
Only the Tories can beat UKIP here, with a big arrow pointing to the Lib Dems saying "The Lib Dems can't win here"
UKIP have now overtaken the LibDems into third place. Tories trailing first-placed Labour by some way though.
By implication the expectation should be for advancement in reasonable sized steps in these early stages.
That said I have little doubt that Blair would have won a by-election on these boundaries in the run-up to 1997. So we can probably write off the chances of Labour wining a 1997-style landslide next year.
1. Improved morale.
2. Better coverage in the media air war.
3. More credibility in terms of being an opposition recovering from a previous election defeat.
4. Experience of campaigning in a Tory seat and winning back voters lost at previous elections - what campaigning messages work?
Excluding the NI by-elections this was only the third government-held seat to come up for a by-election. Labour won Corby with a decent swing when they were still benefiting from the Omnishambles budget. Their performance in Eastleigh could be explained as a tactical defence of the Lib Dems against right-wing opponents.
Newark is something else. Tim used to speak of anti-Tory tactical voting as being the most powerful force in British politics. Yesterday we heard from a Labour MP who said Labour voters were voting tactically for the Tories.
Does this mean your dubious flirtation with the purples is over?
At the next election there will be the two parties, with Lab having drifted leftwards but, IMO, still not having caught up with the LDs on the left. If the LDs position themselves as still being left of the Lab/Cons then I think that in the cold light of day people will prefer them as a NOTA.
Sounds counter-intuitive: right wing Kippers => left wing LDs (even with the left's anti-EU stance) but I think that the LDs will be a "safer" NOTA vote come the day, who will be able to continue to restrain the baby-eaters.
Because of course no one is going to trust Lab with the economy ("partly to blame, not learned, might do it again").
Lagarde - I am not a candidate for EC
Nadal's French Open record is a comically lopsided 64-1. I suspect your bet will prove a winner. However, it's worth noting this is the first year he's lost twice on clay prior to the French Open.
Saw a bit of Sharapova and Bouchard the other day. As cunningly predicted, Bouchard's not quite there yet, but she could be a serious competitor for titles in a year or two.
Not really offered any tennis tips this year. Might do for Wimbledon.
They could still win one or two seats with votes in the high 20's, the Greens won Brighton Pavillion with just 31.3%, and Norwich South was won by the Lib Dems with 29.4%, but if they could get to the 30-35% range then the possibilities widen quite considerably.
With Lab and Lib-Dem voters also going tactically for Conservatives to keep UKIP out, it also appears that Farage is doing Cameron's detoxification of the Tory brand for him,LOL.
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
Anti-UKIP tactical voting is going to be an absolute disaster for the party.
So three things have changed:
1. Newark was won by New Labour, not Labour. Blair won in all kinds of bizarre places that doesn't make them key targets for Labour now the Middle East War Envoy has departed
2. Newark 2014 is far safer for the Tories than Newark 1997
3. The rise and rise of Reggie UKIP
Apart from all that change, Labour getting nowhere near PROVES that Ed is Carp because nothing has changed at all.
On 2nd thoughts perhaps it was all economic. Labour hasn't got much money and why waste it on Newark when they have next to no chance of winning it in a GE? Strategically it was obvious that the by election mattered more to the Tories and Ukip who would throw the kitchen sink at it. Maybe Labour has better ways to spend its money.
rcs - I'd agree the Lib Dems have effectively been reduced to the anit-Ukip party. The party to protest against the protest party (that doesn't have a single MP). Clegg's destruction of the yellows is almost complete
For what it's worth, I have a vague memory Sharapova tends to reach finals and lose. She's also lost the first set for the last few rounds. I'd check the 2-1 odds (for either player) if I were betting on that match (which I'm not).
One thing we can all agree on is that Lib-Dem 2.2% = LOL!
"Labour getting nowhere near PROVES that Ed is Carp ..."
......................................................................................
Ed Miliband Will Never Be PM - Piscatorial Maximus
Betting postYou're all corrupting me. *sighs*
Right, I checked Ladbrokes (as I've mentioned, my accounts are really lopsided so I often bet with Ladbrokes rather than Betfair now) and have made small bets as follows:
To lose the first set and win the match, Sharapova 5.5
Halep win 2-1, 4.5
George Osborne @George_Osborne 3s
IMF forecast UK to be the fastest growing major advanced economy in the world this year. Shows our #LongTermEconomicPlan is working