Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly a by-election possibility in CON-held Newark comes
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly a by-election possibility in CON-held Newark comes into the frame. A chance for UKIP?
The Sunday Times is reporting this morning that the CON MP for Newark, Patrick Mercer could be on the point of quitting which would force a by-election over a cash for questions scandal.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGxoSGFQaWg1V2tyYklHcXFkTm9LTXc&pli=1#gid=0
Bassetlaw: Tuxford.
Newark & Sherwood: Balderton, Collingham, Farndon&Muskham, Newark East, Newark West, Southwell&Caunton.
Rushcliffe: Bingham.
Con: 10,750 (8/8 contested)
Lab: 5,153 (8/8)
UKIP: 3,520 (7/8)
LD: 3,028 (7/8)
Ind: 1,846 (2/8)
Total: 24,297
Percentages:
Con: 44.2%
Lab: 21.2%
UKIP: 14.5%
LD: 12.5%
Ind: 7.6%
Changes from the 2010 general election:
Con: -9.7%
Lab: -1.1%
UKIP: +10.7%
LD: -7.5%
Ind: +7.6%
Not completely accurate because a small portion (in terms of population) of the Radcliffe on Trent CC division is included in the Newark constituency, although most of it is in Rushcliffe.
This sort of thing makes a difference at the margins, and I suspect that it will mean the majority is too large for either Labour or UKIP to bridge. They are too far behind and have not had enough time with an installed candidate to close some of that ground.
Definitely a wasted opportunity given the time they have had to make a selection given that Mercer resigned the Conservative whip almost a year ago. Suspect that the Conservatives would be able to manage at least just over a third of the vote in the by-election, and thus hold what would be a relatively close three-way contest.
When YouGov filter for this the result becomes:
Ukip 36%
Lab 28%
Con 16%
LD 7%
Gr 9%
Both of them seem to be pretty young, which might create an opening for a more seasoned campaigner for UKIP:
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2013/11/robert-jenrick-chosen-for-newark.html
http://michaelpayne.org.uk/about-me/
Are racist 25
Are not racist 66
Don't know 9
And do you think Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, is or is not racist?
Is racist 27
Is not racist 50
Don't know 23
Do you think Nigel Farage is or is not behaving in a hypocritical way by employing his German wife in this way?
Is behaving in a hypocritical way 44
Is not behaving in a hypocritical way 40
Not sure 16
(From YouGov)
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Candidate-reveals-three-priorities
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2008/11/robert-jenrick.html
Instead of tearing into the preposterous Ukip leader, Britain's famously aggressive media have made him a celebrity"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/26/nigel-farage-phoney-scrutinise-him-ukip
Farage racist? – YES (27) - NO (50%)
On the basis of these findings, the liberal elite are going to have to rethink their attack plan on Farage. - I would not be surprised if he became the poster boy for every person in the UK who loathes the PC consensus that has stifled the immigration debate for the past decade.
I was in Bridgnorth on Wednesday (Severn Valley Railway!), then Doha airport on Thursday. And since Friday, I've been in Calicut in southern India! Greetings to all PBers from the Malabar Coast. Very hot, but yesterday narrowly avoided getting drenched in a thunderstorm when visiting Kappad, the reputed landing site of Vasco da Gama in 1498. Hope to upload pics to Twitter in due course. Election already held in Kerala's 20 parliamentary seats, my family are mostly Congress supporters. No real BJP presence in the state, straight fight between Congress and the out-and-out Left here
Net resign (Con)
Next year & let someone else take over: -17 (-82)
If Con#3 behind UKIP /Lab in Euros: -5 (-61)
If Scotland votes Yes: -23 (-81)
So the introduction of a "Scotland Yes" reduces the propensity of people to think Cameron should resign vs "go next year (cause unspecified)"
Even the Scots don't think he should resign (-9) if they vote yes (they do think he should go on the Euros question +11)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/pjvdg1r9fz/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-140525.pdf
The rather crass poster campaign, featuring the Irish actor, the pretense that the party worker was an ordinary member of the public, and the offensive remarks by the Zimbabwean decorator all point to there being no one at UKIP head office with an eye for detail. The laughably quixotic 2010 manifesto shows that there is no real leadership.
Combine this with an absence of policies apart from the panacea of EU exit (though even this is unclear in how we would relate to international bodies like EFTA afterwards) and the astonishingly poor and inept actions of the 2009 UKIP MEPs, and there is plenty of scope for exposing the vacuity of Farage as a serious politician.
You omit the question immediately preceding the posters one:
UKIP are:
Serious party with workable policies: 20
Protest party without realistic policies: 57
Should there be:
Duet: Cameron/Miliband: 13
Three-way: Cameron/Miliband /Clegg: 19
Foursome: Cameron/Miliband/Clegg/Farage: 50
While the foursome is obviously most popular among UKIP VI (92) it also leads for Con (53) and Lab (42), while LibDems prefer a three-way (49).
I would certainly have expected that it would tip a few people into thinking he should resign, because the Union would have broken-up on his watch, so it's thought-provoking to have that assumption challenged by the opinion poll.
My first thought as to why my assumption was wrong is that more people would view the post-YES vote situation as something of a crisis for the rest of the UK, during which they would want stable leadership, rather than blaming Cameron for failing to preserve the Union. This is the sort of reaction that occurs in the immediate aftermath of many disasters/wars/etc where there is a tendency to "rally to the flag" - provided the incumbent government are not obviously at fault.
"there is plenty of scope for exposing the vacuity of Farage as a serious politician."
The problem is that being a serious politician means you're a hypocrite, liar and expenses cheat. Is that really a plus?
They will surely get some votes from people who don't think they are a serious party with workable policies - but really want to send a message about leaving the EU - so 20% as a base who take them seriously is quite something to play with.
I) a pity, not a disaster and
II) not Cameron's "fault".
Despite what some of our more excitable posters would wish to believe....
What would be the purpose of a snap resignation in September?
36/31
Wonder how many PBers stand to make a few quid when Scotland votes YES?
Interesting YouGov secondaries. One battery of questions that people haven't mentioned is the ones on "would you vote for a party who you disagreed with about ... if you thought other issues more important?" That essentially measures salience. The NHS is top but even there 22% will tolerate disagreement. The economy and education are important, on most others there are a lot of voters who will put up with disagreement - e.g. 45% of Labour voters say they'd accept disagreement of immigration, 43% of Tories could accept disagreement on pensions.
And yes, the certainty to vote is what may clinch the Euros for UKIP - a clear edge 10-point in determination there over all the others. Against that, the other parties have stronger GOTV machines in place. But will they be getting out the right voters? HALF the 2010 Tories planning to defect (and 1/6 of 2010 Labour), while both Lab and LibDems are being nibbled at by the Greens.
Fortunately the electorate seem to be a lot calmer.....
Lab 36
Con 31
Kip 15
Lib 9
I think...
Devomax was a mirage, it could not have been offered without a discussion of what it actually meant to the rest of the country, unlike independence. That would have taken longer than Salmond would have waited, and would also just be a further step in the direction of independence.
The tightening of the polls for the Indyref will concentrate minds as it will lead to more discussion of what Indy Scotland would look like. There may be a certain amount of sobering up before September 18!
I am not sure it will make any real difference overall as it will be very hard for UKIP to make much of an inroad. Unlike Lincolnshire they do not, to my knowledge appear to have a well developed local team in place and I think they would be relying too much on outside help.
Has it not occured to Conservative Central Office that their pet newspapers constantly denigrating UKIP and exposing the things that low ranking members stated on twitter years ago is hugely backfiring?
No one doubts that a large proportion of people in this country are not so far right wing as to be "Rhodesian" (ie they would disagree, to a greater or to at least some extent with Ian Smith or Robert Mugabe on certain social issues).
However, people are becoming increasingly concerned that those who lead our society are becoming ever more intolerant to those who express views which disagree with them (something that Rhodesia did very thoroughly and continues under Mugabe - who still uses Smith's laws to repress free speech).
Therefore this monstering of UKIP is driving increasing numbers of ordinary people to UKIP (as well as giving a large dog whistle to those who do have Rhodesian views on certain social issues - who are rather more than those willing to admit to such views publically).
No English or Scottish politician would survive 2015 unless the wanted to drive the hardest bargain possible.
It's tragic."
It is Alex Salmond whose name will written into the history books as the man who lead Scotland to independence and cast off the yoke of English tyranny, - I don't think he is much concerned with what comes after.
is this the new euphemism for racism?
''is he a racist? No, his views are just a bit, well, Rhodesian''
Mr. T, I disagree with you over resignation and DevoMax (you can't have that without a UK-wide discussion and vote). However, I concur entirely that if Yes wins we'll have an acrimonious break-up.
Currency union guarantees one side will be pissed off. Faslane will probably be closed, costing the UK a fortune. Financial services will move south, costing Scotland jobs and tax income, and boosting the UK. Pensions will piss off one side or the other (will the UK state pay pensions to Scottish ex-public sector workers? If yes, that'll piss off the UK, if no, it'll probably piss off Scotland).
Where's the advantage, really?
Scotland wants to keep the pound, the monarchy, Bank of England as lender of last resort, retain 'social union' [whatever the hell that is], membership of the EU etc etc. What's actually going to change if the SNP get their dream result?
All political parties and their candidates should be put under the spotlight. If that means the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems get bashed as well, so be it. Comments on the Internet are fair game.
For instance, Henwood's comments are clearly at a level where he should not be able to represent himself, yet alone constituents. They're vile. He's perfectly within his right to say them, but the fact he is standing for UKIP reflects badly on them as well.
If UKIP don't want to get monstered, they should be more professional in their selection of candidates. And there is a positive to this: this focus shows that they're being taken more seriously.
(And before anyone gets on their high horse, last week I linked to an article where a local Conservative politician said something much less controversial and got suspended).
Danny Alexander has called on Scottish ministers to produce "realistic analysis" of the cost of independence.
It comes as the Treasury prepares to publish detailed findings on the financial impact of a "Yes" vote....
.....Treasury officials have also analysed the Scottish government's white paper and said they had "attempted to produce many of the calculations that were missing".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27174605
It's this kind of po-faced condemnation without argument that is driving UKIP ever upwards.
In order to beat UKIP, opponents will have to come up with reasoned arguments as to why Henwood's comments are both factually incorrect and morally wrong.
“Lunacy of the town that turned Green: A ban on bacon butties. Traffic-calming sheep. Transgender toilets. Sounds like a send-up? In fact, it's the all-too-real story of how Britain's loopiest party took over Brighton...” - http://tinyurl.com/pzqlc9j
Unfortunately the Mail does not go into great detail as to how ‘bacon butties’ would be banned, but - I fear civil wars have been started for less…!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27176803 This is particularly ludicrous when said about Lenny Henry, FFS. British born, he was married to Dawn French for decades. Again, defend this comment.
UKIP's problem in this case is that Henwood's comments hardly help diffuse the idea they they are a deeply intolerant party.
I imagine 'English Tory PM tells Scots to be happy with DevoMax' going down very well......
But that's hardly a defence, is it? "Look, they're just as bad"
Mr. F, I'd not heard that ethnic quota suggestion before. It's bloody bonkers.
Their whole moral basis is that they are an enlightened few who control and suppress the boorish thuggery of the lower orders for the benefit of all (ie them). Now the wheels are coming off.
UKIP's problem in this case is that Henwood's comments hardly help diffuse the idea they they are a deeply intolerant party.
As a basic principle anyone calling for British citizens to leave the country should not be supported by UKIP. But as a rule UKIP are deselecting or kicking out members who say such things whilst the Tories are continuing to support and defend those of their councillors who say equally vile things. That is the big difference between the two parties.
As a Tory you can still leave messages on the phones of Gay colleagues saying you hope they die of Aids and be assured you will not lose your seat.
Remember the idiot who claimed gays caused floods left the Tories of his own volition even though he had said equally offensive things whilst a Tory councillor. He was kicked out of UKIP for those views. Which party is showing more tolerance for vile behaviour?
PS sorry for hitting the off topic key on your post. I pressed the wrong button. I think I've undone it by pressing it again though.
Vote shares, not leads remember
Simply say something like: "Henry's wrong. In my view any positive discrimination's wrong. Henry's got to the top of his industry by dint of his skill and hard work. We should ensure that roadblocks are removed so we can have a level playing field, regardless of sex, race or creed. Discriminating against some to remove discrimination is nonsensical."
Defend that.
UKIP's problem in this case is that Henwood's comments hardly help diffuse the idea they they are a deeply intolerant party.
As a basic principle anyone calling for British citizens to leave the country should not be supported by UKIP. But as a rule UKIP are deselecting or kicking out members who say such things whilst the Tories are continuing to support and defend those of their councillors who say equally vile things. That is the big difference between the two parties.
As a Tory you can still leave messages on the phones of Gay colleagues saying you hope they die of Aids and be assured you will not lose your seat.
Remember the idiot who claimed gays caused floods left the Tories of his own volition even though he had said equally offensive things whilst a Tory councillor. He was kicked out of UKIP for those views. Which party is showing more tolerance for vile behaviour?
I agree to an extent. In which case, you should be welcoming the media's attentions. They're helping you clear out the stupid and extremists.
It reminds me of an idiot some time ago who reckoned money should be spent on black areas specifically to help counter-balance the harm slavery did (although the chap did stop short of suggesting full reparations should be paid).
Identity politics is bloody stupid, and fosters division, entitlement and resentment.
As a Tory you can still leave messages on the phones of Gay colleagues saying you hope they die of Aids and be assured you will not lose your seat.
Remember the idiot who claimed gays caused floods left the Tories of his own volition even though he had said equally offensive things whilst a Tory councillor. He was kicked out of UKIP for those views. Which party is showing more tolerance for vile behaviour?
I agree to an extent. In which case, you should be welcoming the media's attentions. They're helping you clear out the stupid and extremists.
I have not complained about the media coverage. I think all politicians of any party should have the light shone on them and be held to account. Just interesting that they (and apparently you) like highlighting the UKIP failings whilst ignoring those of the Tories. Points to a certain double standard I believe.
They (henwood's comments) probably are vile. But saying so only boosts UKIP. As the comments below the Cohen article on CIF reveal.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8759
The strong UKIP showing at the European elections does NOT mean people support leaving the EU. Asked how they’d vote in a referendum on EU membership 40% say they would vote to stay, 37% say they would vote to leave. While the lead is only three points, YouGov’s regular tracker is now consistently showing a lead for staying in. In the event David Cameron managed to renegotiate Britain’s membership people would be almost 2-to-1 in favour of remaining within the EU.
One issue which might help him make up his mind is Scottish Independence.If the Scots vote would David Cameron resign?.If the answer is yes then Boris might cast caution aside, get a friendly fellow Tory in a safe seat to resign and give by election shoe in for Boris.Or he may calculate that any interim PM would still fail to win and his best move would be just to find a safe seat and start with clean sheet in a post election Tory leadership contest.
One thing is for sure he wont be risking his political career by standing as candidate for the Newark by election
1) Phil Woolas wouldn't now be able to adopt a "make the white folks angry" strategy. Not because it's offensive, but because it would simply be to UKIP's benefit.
2) UKIP have more to fear from the public feeling the benefit of economic growth than Labour. As an essentially nihilistic party with no coherent positive message, they need the public to feel alienated.
You also evidently missed my comment below: No double standards at all.
Go to a pub, a building site or a white van and it would be put as Henwood put it and your way of putting it would go straight over their heads and either not be understood or dismissed as wordy woffle. Henwood's comments might be crude but in syntax terms they are to the point and easily understood.
There are rather more people in the in the "pub, building site or the white van etc" category than in the "articulate, learned and well educated" category and they are increasingly feeling that the "articulate, learned and well educated category" are conspiring against them for the benefit of the "articulate, learned and well educated category" and that (to bring the EU into it) the "articulate, learned and well educated category" prefer and have more in common with the "articulate, learned and well educated category" in other EU countries than with the "pub, building site or the white van etc" category in their own country.
I admit I am quite unusual having been in both categories (left comprehensive school, started work cleaning lavatories later went to college day release for four years, then university and am now a chartered professional), however it does enable me to see clearly what is happening here.
And yet I see no criticism from you of the Tory party itself for refusing to kick out councillors who behave in ways just as unsavoury as those you ascribe to UKIP.
Bottom line yet again UKIP are kicking out such people whilst the Tories are not. Which party is the one tolerating abusive behaviour?
And as I've said before, if UKIP do end up with that level of support in both locals and Euros, it will strengthen further their claim to a PM-debate place in 2015.
If UKIP supporters choose to think they're not vile, that's their problem.
Ditto a coherent explanation of immigration. Irish immigrants, it seems we learn this week, are OK. But whether all immigration is to be stopped, immigrants who write their names in non-Latin alphabets are to be stopped, immigrants whose surname ends in a U are to be stopped or only those immigrants whose name is on a list handwritten by Nigel Farage are to be permitted remains wholly unclear.
“I have a screen where great programmes are produced by the multi-cultural many, as opposed to the mono-cultural elite. I have a screen where the actors of the future are cast not by the colour of their skin, but by their talent alone. I have a screen where the stories in our cinemas and on our TVs will reflect the wealth and variety of experience of all our communities, not just some.”
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/home/diversify/lenny-henry-bbc-must-ring-fence-funds-for-bame-shows/5068716.article
I think his point is that while BAME actors get work (though often in typecast roles without nuances) the back staff in the media industry are no where near as diverse, working in a very old boy network way. Steve McQueen won an Oscar, but had to go to the States to do it...
Much the same is true of sport. Many Black footballers and athletes, but the powers that be resemble those of decades ago.
Bottom line yet again UKIP are kicking out such people whilst the Tories are not. Which party is the one tolerating abusive behaviour?
Then you need to read what I've written: How many other cases do you have in mind wrt the Conservatives? Just that one?