politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Conservatives win a by-election whilst in government fo
Comments
-
It did him a lot of good - in Scotland.Jonathan said:Labour do have questions to answer, but this by-election reminds me most of Glenrothes in the last parliament. Brown won by-elections against the nationalists for all the good it did him.
If Newark is symptomatic of what is happening across the Midlands then that will have more effect on the Labour/Conservative tussle.0 -
No, no - you've got it all wrong!TGOHF said:@TelegraphNews: Less than one in three teenage Scots 'will vote for independence' http://t.co/cK41MXVPFW
Less than a third of Scottish teenagers eligible to vote in the independence referendum will pick Yes, a major survey has found.
Comparatively more than half of 16- and 17-year-olds will vote to keep Scotland part of the UK, Edinburgh University research found.
The findings suggest that Alex Salmond's decision to expand the franchise to some teenagers for the independence vote has backfired.
"Yes vote surges among teenagers as No lead slashed by 16 points" (to 28)
0 -
*grin* Whereas the right as demonstrated by all these gay hating UKIPpers and poor and disabled hating Tories - as personified by IDefineSatan are all definitely not hate filled.FalseFlag said:
I never not known a lefty who wasn't hate filled. The most unpleasant people I have worked with are journalists, a more bigoted group I have not met. The problem is the left then projects that's how people on the right think and behave. This is reflected in the left's habit of vote rigging, using public funds corruptly, seeking to imprison people for have opposing opinions through speech codes, physical assault by the UAF or just outright murder from Fortuyn to the Gulags etc.SouthamObserver said:
I think that's because the left is evil, while the right is just better. I am not sure that left of centre parties should be allowed to contest elections given their inherent wickedness. If only everyone could be as good and as non-hate-filled as you.FalseFlag said:It's hard for the left to understand that people vote out of positive sentiments and not just hate. Good result for Cons and UKIP. Lib Dems an increasing irrelevance now people know their extremist policies on Europe, immigration etc.
As a I've said before, why UKIP do so well is that unlike the established parties of left and right, they recognise that most people are prejudiced (such as your prejudice against me as a leftie) and play on those fears.
0 -
Toxic Labour have lost a chunk to the Cons and more so to UKIP. Across Europe the left are losing the WWC to the hard right, picking up the Looney left from the Lib Dems is no substitute. UKIP clearly picking up support from all three parties and none of the above as well as others.0
-
Whatever the outcome of the 2015 GE DH will run an Ed is crap theme. I think it will be a PM Ed is crap theme but we will see,OblitusSumMe said:
Dan Hodges is going to be insufferably smug in May 2015.antifrank1 said:Labour should be very concerned, for the reasons given by Mike Smithson and John Curtice.
Remember DH has a 100% record of being wrong his last triumph declaring for the LDs in the Euros.
0 -
Or the desperation. But yes, particularly in the last two weeks, they were the only ones who looked like they actually wanted to win it, and ran a classic 'money is no object' by-election campaign.antifrank said:Two other unconnected observations:
1) the Conservatives wanted to win this seat big. Other parties should note the hunger that implies.
Congratulations to their agent and their accountant.2) UKIP had no idea about the margin of the Conservative victory, as demonstrated by its briefings of their estimates of the size of the majority. Their ground game remains weak (as is perhaps to be expected with such a new party).
Yes, the only thing which stops me calling it pathetic was that Labour and especially the LibDems were worse. Although UKIP may be new-ish, lots of the key figures have been in politics a long time, and should know how to do it properly.
But when I was canvassed by them, it was 'just' a 'knocking on doors and saying hello' thing. No boxes were ticked, no visible records kept. (In contrast, the Tories had an A4 sheet of answers recorded per voter!?!) So although they'd talk about winning on differential turnout, there was no evidence that they knew where their vote was and they simply did not run a polling day operation worthy of the name.
Their idea was to be visible around the constituency and then go off to the pub before the polls closed. No tellers at any of the three polling stations in Newark I passed, and no apparent committee rooms knocking up. Then, at the count, they congratulated themselves on running a "professional" campaign. That's delusional, as were Farage's comments at the count about getting within two or three thousand.
This was not a Labour target seat, but losing votes... ouch. Even though it's not surprising: UKIP's Newark HQ may have been a shambles, but at least they had one.
The local LibDems concentrated on where they do well at local elections, and didn't have the resources to do much there. The last time the Tories were in government, this would have been an odds-on LibDem gain, but the highest profile visitors were the party's ChiefExec - quick, name them! - and a peer who the people I talked to couldn't remember the name of... and that was it, for the outside help. Utterly cynical 'we're not going to win, so why bother?' targeting or a failure to think that the result could be this bad? Because coming sixth is bad...0 -
Sorry to have been absent for so long internet, BT and email problems, now resolved by satellite internet.
Also had a district council seat to take back from one of Tim Farron's nodders. (PG Wodehouse reference there ).
This UKIP result is reminiscent of the result against Bercow at the GE. The party is not as attractive to "solid" Conservatives as commentators seem to imagine.
Confirms my experience on the doorstep. Those who were going to vote UKIP were not the committed Tory votes, group 9 or even group 6. More often they were the possibles, groups 8 and 5. Certains against, 7 and 4 tended to stay with their party of choice, here the LDs.
In South Lakeland district elections Farron claims that the choice of a green took votes from LD candidates, I don't think that is more than 50% right as the LDs still have a halter-like grip on their supporters. I think in my ward half 1/3 of the green vote would have voted LD without a green candidate, 1/3 for me and 1/3 would not have voted.
The results tend to disguise another significant factor in Westmorland and Lonsdale, the LD core vote, the ones they ring up 6 times, is not coming out anything like as well as it did in times past.
Hence my Tory gain on South Lakeland.
Another feature of the district election this time was the desperation of the LD lies about Westmorland General Hospital. Their leaflets and the nasty little "handwritten" letters from Tim have misrepresented the positions of all non-LDs concerning Westmorland General for 12 years. But, this year whilst their lies remained outrageous this time they were so preposterous as to be risible rather than genuinely threatening as in the past.
I quote, "Tim says ... [ fake handwriting ] This election will decide the future of our hospital. We desperately need Ron [ my personal oponent nodder ] on the council to defend it. Please support him Tim Farron MP".
Meanwhile my colleague in Furness was going to close Furness General Hospital.
Meanwhile again, one of the LD councillors who delivered those leaflets is having a hip operation. Is she going to Westmorland General or Furness, or Lancaster ? No she is going to a private hospital in Manchester !
0 -
One leading correspondent called the Tory election returns "a fraud", and they haven't even done them yet.RochdalePioneers said:I take it they stayed inside the £100k spending cap.....
0 -
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.DavidL said:
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.OblitusSumMe said:
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.DavidL said: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.
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 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.
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.0 -
David, you are an intelligent man. You are very well aware of the extremely long list of domestic matters which are explicitly listed as Reserved in the Scotland Act.david_herdson said:
Compared against a decision that is a 'for centuries' choice, five years is tactical.Stuart_Dickson said:
A Tory government until 2020 or 2025 is a "tactical" consideration?? I think that you are severely testing the limits of the meaning of the word 'tactical'.CarlottaVance said:
If a Unionist argued that the Scots would take a long term strategic decision on the basis of a short term tactical consideration, the Nats would trot out "too thick....."Stuart_Dickson said:
The Yes campaign could not possibly have hoped for a better outcome in Newark. That our country is looking down the barrel of another 5 years of Tory government will start to sharpen a lot of minds.
Good result for Con, not bad for UKIP - tho I suspect this will have minimal impact on either's polling.
In any case, on domestic matters, I thought you'd got an SNP government?
Scotland has three governments:
- Holyrood
- Westminster
- Brussels
That is (at least) one too many.
Voters do not live for centuries. 5 to 10 years is a significant chunk of an adult's life. The risk of 5 to 10 more years of Tory government is not "a tactical consideration".0 -
Ed Miliband: the only man who can make Gordon Brown look good.OblitusSumMe said:
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.DavidL said:
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.OblitusSumMe said:
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.DavidL said: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.
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 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.
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.
0 -
Gary Robertson of Good Morning Scotland famously challenged Swinney 13 times in a recent interview to put a price on the cost of a break up. It was a car crash for Swinney and an excellent piece of political interviewing. The BBC have decided not to renew his contract when it expires in August.
No doubt others in the media will learn the lesson.0 -
I thought the Conservatives had developed a smart-phone app for canvassing that connected to their Merlin database. Tech trubbles?MoreCynicalThanThou said:
But when I was canvassed by them, it was 'just' a 'knocking on doors and saying hello' thing. No boxes were ticked, no visible records kept. (In contrast, the Tories had an A4 sheet of answers recorded per voter!?!)
0 -
It's all there in the detail of Ashcroft's Newark poll. The Tories take more 2010 Lib Dems than Labour. There is a small net Labour to Conservative direct movement of voters.
That shouldn't be happening to the principal opposition in a by-election.0 -
Yes, I don't know where they got them from, but the age of the Tories who delivered stuff and canvassed me was striking.DavidL said:These things can be contagious and the pretty young things in Newark with their curry and sex (alleged) is a fantastically different image from a party whose average member was well past retirement age and struggled with a bit of leafleting.
0 -
Plenty of sour grapes on show from the losers already.MoreCynicalThanThou said:
One leading correspondent called the Tory election returns "a fraud", and they haven't even done them yet.RochdalePioneers said:I take it they stayed inside the £100k spending cap.....
0 -
@anotherDave
"I thought the Conservatives had developed a smart-phone app for canvassing that connected to their Merlin database."
Was IDS involved? If so there might be some delay0 -
Good performance by Labour in Clydesdale yesterday. Poor SNP run continues.Stuart_Dickson said:
Ed Miliband: the only man who can make Gordon Brown look good.OblitusSumMe said:
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.DavidL said:
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.OblitusSumMe said:
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.DavidL said: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.
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 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.
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
OblitusSumMe said:
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.DavidL said:
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.OblitusSumMe said:
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.DavidL said: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.
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 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.
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.
I agree. I am expecting a no vote in Scotland but the SNP to do "surprisingly" well in 2015 on the back of the argument that they will best represent Scotland in any devomax discussions.
The collapse of the Lib Dems favours Labour enormously in England so I remain cautious about just how badly Labour might do. I still think they may well end up the largest party.
0 -
Dunno. It was all very nicely printed.anotherDave said:
I thought the Conservatives had developed a smart-phone app for canvassing that connected to their Merlin database. Tech trubbles?MoreCynicalThanThou said:
But when I was canvassed by them, it was 'just' a 'knocking on doors and saying hello' thing. No boxes were ticked, no visible records kept. (In contrast, the Tories had an A4 sheet of answers recorded per voter!?!)0 -
I notice OGH has now gone big on third place finishers in two three horse races.
If you prefer a betting tip from me instead then take a look at the Conservative odds in Sherwood constituency. Shads and Padds were offering 9/2 and 5/1 IIRC.
Sherwood is a constituency where the Conservative vote is middle class private sector and the Labour vote wwc.
0 -
Seeing as the Greens and Paul Baggaley have both beaten the Lib Dems shouldn't they be on the bar chart too !
Doesn't seem fair.0 -
It would be fair to say Merlin went a long way to my county council defeat in 2013, wrong electoral numbers and it crashed on election day. This year we had paper copies of everything, and never needed them. This time Merlin worked and worked well. There are apps, some more amateur than others. We tend to ring the numbers in now and let the office put them on the computer. Worked well this year.0
-
The problem with Merlin is is uses too much paper so it is easier to go around with the electoral roll and write them up afterwards. This has the advantage that your canvasser doesn't knock with an expectation. Disadvantage, some supporters could be offended - canvassers need to be disciplined.0
-
That was my assumption before this by-election, and was, for example, the pattern shown in Corby.DavidL said:The collapse of the Lib Dems favours Labour enormously in England so I remain cautious about just how badly Labour might do. I still think they may well end up the largest party.
In Newark, Labour obviously lost more votes to UKIP and the Conservatives than they gained from the Lib Dems. If that happens across small town Britain in 2015 then Miliband is sunk.0 -
Your final sentence is going to provoke more thought from me than any other post on this thread. Thank you.another_richard said:I notice OGH has now gone big on third place finishers in two three horse races.
If you prefer a betting tip from me instead then take a look at the Conservative odds in Sherwood constituency. Shads and Padds were offering 9/2 and 5/1 IIRC.
Sherwood is a constituency where the Conservative vote is middle class private sector and the Labour vote wwc.0 -
Errm
Ladbrokes have settled my Newark By-Election bet as a loser !0 -
And if our old friend tim is reading this a message to him:
I told you that you can't just add half the 2010 LibDems to the 2010 Labour total.
Labour will gain significantly from the 2010 LibDems but only where they were middle class public sector or ethnic minorities. Where the 2010 LibDems were middle class private sector the Conservatives will make gains from them and where they were wwc UKIP will make the gains.
0 -
Thoughts on the long wait last night:
1. As expected, Neil and Curtice were infinitely better than the usual Beeb election night coverage these days which is so feeble now sadly - but they did need some changing politicians to spar with.
2. Mcloughlin's interview where he said it was nice of Farage to concede the UKIP loss when he wasn't even the candidate was very well put
3. Diane James became less impressive the longer the night went on after starting strongly and having set the bar at her 'record' being beaten by Helmer early on, then was left unable to say anything other than it was s disappointing result
4. Ashworth was blokey and had moments of cut through honesty but also struggled to hide the lack of any positive story from Newark itself for Labour. His loss in the debate with Curtice was a highlight but he did acknowledge twitter saying he'd struggled and did 'human' well.
5. Bryant was an utter tit.
6. Farage saying the maj would be 2k to 3k so early on may have set the newspaper overnight coverage but was again poor expectations management - he also looked rather 'rough'.
7. Hancock / Tories need at least one 'thing' they'd do on immigration rather than just blame the Lib Dems as that was his weakest part of the evening. He isn't a star in waiting.
8. The Lib Dems did better once Malcolm Bruce actually left and empty chaired.0 -
It was obvious that money was no object long before the result was known. Much of the spend will be 'off the return' - all those outsiders certainly didn't get their expenses paid by the campaign - but if they didn't actually really go over the limit in other stuff, I'd be amazed.TGOHF said:
Plenty of sour grapes on show from the losers already.MoreCynicalThanThou said:One leading correspondent called the Tory election returns "a fraud", and they haven't even done them yet.
That's not what the return will say, and of course there will be paperwork to prove they only spent ninety-something grand.0 -
Elmet & Rothwell is another constituency which had a middle class private sector Conservative and wwc Labour voting split.antifrank said:
Your final sentence is going to provoke more thought from me than any other post on this thread. Thank you.another_richard said:I notice OGH has now gone big on third place finishers in two three horse races.
If you prefer a betting tip from me instead then take a look at the Conservative odds in Sherwood constituency. Shads and Padds were offering 9/2 and 5/1 IIRC.
Sherwood is a constituency where the Conservative vote is middle class private sector and the Labour vote wwc.
I've got the Conservatives there at an incredible 9/2 from PP - the wise Shadsy made the Conservatives favourites.
0 -
So all the by-election polls (Survation x2, Lord A) underestimated the Tories and overestimated everyone else0
-
Do you believe you'll be able to chip away at Farron's huge majority next year ?A_View_From_Cumbria2 said:The problem with Merlin is is uses too much paper so it is easier to go around with the electoral roll and write them up afterwards. This has the advantage that your canvasser doesn't knock with an expectation. Disadvantage, some supporters could be offended - canvassers need to be disciplined.
0 -
Morning all. the official result just in is
Shadsy 2
Hertsmere Pubgoer 0
:-(0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mildly surprised by the size of the majority. Thread's pretty much spot on. Great for blues, mediocre for purples, and one feels this is the prelude to the Carrhae which will be the General Election for Crassus Clegg.0 -
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.another_richard said: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.
0 -
I was told by "Gemma", the Ladbrokes chat operator, that the bets have not yet been settled despite onscreen appearances. They're looking into the techy side and Ladbrokes accept that the Conservatives won!Pulpstar said:Errm
Ladbrokes have settled my Newark By-Election bet as a loser !0 -
No bias at all.peter_from_putney said:
Not really - just the usual and inevitable anti-Tory bias from the BBC.Scrapheap_as_was said:Well I'm massively confused, when I went to sleep 3 hours ago, we'd heard the Newark result and it was clearly viewed on This Week as being a much better result than expected for the Tories...
Radio 2 news headlines at 7am tells me how the Tories have retained the Newark seat but have "seen their majority slashed". UKIP came second again for the xth time and were pleased with that with their vote going up 5x over...
How confusing!
This seat is in a Tory heartland with few leftie professionals, a split anti-Tory vote, and was always going to be a very easy Tory hold. As the sensible among us predicted from the start.
When the Tories 'fought' a Labour stronghold (in Manchester Central) they came home with the princely return of 700-odd votes.
Yet I come on here and the Tories have won GE2015!
Plus ca change.
Meanwhile, another YouGov showing a widening Labour lead.
Surely it's time for a thread on that, rather than yet another Ukip/Ed is crap comfort blanket?
0 -
Young people aren't all knee jerk lefties these days. Labour haven't worked this out yet. Who will suffer the worst if Red Ed Microband gets back in? (hint - not the babyboomers)MoreCynicalThanThou said:
Yes, I don't know where they got them from, but the age of the Tories who delivered stuff and canvassed me was striking.DavidL said:These things can be contagious and the pretty young things in Newark with their curry and sex (alleged) is a fantastically different image from a party whose average member was well past retirement age and struggled with a bit of leafleting.
0 -
I can't believe my Elections Game guess was so close, I thought they'd win by half that and just didn't work out what turnout would translate a 10-15% lead into a 7,000 majority...0
-
Spot on. We need to follow your example and spread a little more sunshine. You are an example to us all. You are just better than leftie filth like me.FalseFlag said:
I never not known a lefty who wasn't hate filled. The most unpleasant people I have worked with are journalists, a more bigoted group I have not met. The problem is the left then projects that's how people on the right think and behave. This is reflected in the left's habit of vote rigging, using public funds corruptly, seeking to imprison people for have opposing opinions through speech codes, physical assault by the UAF or just outright murder from Fortuyn to the Gulags etc.SouthamObserver said:
I think that's because the left is evil, while the right is just better. I am not sure that left of centre parties should be allowed to contest elections given their inherent wickedness. If only everyone could be as good and as non-hate-filled as you.FalseFlag said:It's hard for the left to understand that people vote out of positive sentiments and not just hate. Good result for Cons and UKIP. Lib Dems an increasing irrelevance now people know their extremist policies on Europe, immigration etc.
0 -
Perhaps you should watch the John Curtice 'highlights' from last night? He was fantastic at pricking all the party bubbles and spin.BobaFett said:
No bias at all.peter_from_putney said:
Not really - just the usual and inevitable anti-Tory bias from the BBC.Scrapheap_as_was said:Well I'm massively confused, when I went to sleep 3 hours ago, we'd heard the Newark result and it was clearly viewed on This Week as being a much better result than expected for the Tories...
Radio 2 news headlines at 7am tells me how the Tories have retained the Newark seat but have "seen their majority slashed". UKIP came second again for the xth time and were pleased with that with their vote going up 5x over...
How confusing!
This seat is in a Tory heartland with few leftie professionals, a split anti-Tory vote, and was always going to be a very easy Tory hold. As the sensible among us predicted from the start.
When the Tories 'fought' a Labour stronghold (in Manchester Central) they came home with the princely return of 700-odd votes.
Yet I come on here and the Tories have won GE2015!
Plus ca change.
Meanwhile, another YouGov showing a widening Labour lead.
Surely it's time for a thread on that, rather than yet another Ukip/Ed is crap comfort blanket?0 -
You shouldn't have said that. I was thinking you were a genius!Quincel said:I can't believe my Elections Game guess was so close, I thought they'd win by half that and just didn't work out what turnout would translate a 10-15% lead into a 7,000 majority...
0 -
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%.0
-
Agree - very much an equal opportunity bubble deflator.....Scrapheap_as_was said:
Perhaps you should watch the John Curtice 'highlights' from last night? He was fantastic at pricking all the party bubbles and spin.BobaFett said:
No bias at all.peter_from_putney said:
Not really - just the usual and inevitable anti-Tory bias from the BBC.Scrapheap_as_was said:Well I'm massively confused, when I went to sleep 3 hours ago, we'd heard the Newark result and it was clearly viewed on This Week as being a much better result than expected for the Tories...
Radio 2 news headlines at 7am tells me how the Tories have retained the Newark seat but have "seen their majority slashed". UKIP came second again for the xth time and were pleased with that with their vote going up 5x over...
How confusing!
This seat is in a Tory heartland with few leftie professionals, a split anti-Tory vote, and was always going to be a very easy Tory hold. As the sensible among us predicted from the start.
When the Tories 'fought' a Labour stronghold (in Manchester Central) they came home with the princely return of 700-odd votes.
Yet I come on here and the Tories have won GE2015!
Plus ca change.
Meanwhile, another YouGov showing a widening Labour lead.
Surely it's time for a thread on that, rather than yet another Ukip/Ed is crap comfort blanket?
0 -
I think @another_richard is half right:SouthamObserver said:
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.another_richard said: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.
It's WWCM = UKIP, WWCW = Lab
0 -
I will just say this, as I'm resting my eyes today: A disappointment for us Kippers in that we didn't get more percentage of the vote. A reminder for the UKIP executive that there is still a great amount to do in the organisation dept., and to manage expectations. However, it wasn't a setback as such, as the UKIP bandwaggon will still roll on, and there maybe other and better chances to upset the Lab/Lib/Cons before the GE.0
-
TSE's pro Tory bias clearly shows in the report.
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"0 -
O/T...sort of
Radio 5 last night, just after the results, the host named the winner as "Generic" several times, instead of Jenrick.
Obviously he had a miss read/ brainfart, but it was amusing.0 -
Easterross said:
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.0 -
Pathetic showing by Labour in Newark. Without LibDem switchers you'd have been in single figures percentage-wise.BobaFett said:
No bias at all.peter_from_putney said:
Not really - just the usual and inevitable anti-Tory bias from the BBC.Scrapheap_as_was said:Well I'm massively confused, when I went to sleep 3 hours ago, we'd heard the Newark result and it was clearly viewed on This Week as being a much better result than expected for the Tories...
Radio 2 news headlines at 7am tells me how the Tories have retained the Newark seat but have "seen their majority slashed". UKIP came second again for the xth time and were pleased with that with their vote going up 5x over...
How confusing!
This seat is in a Tory heartland with few leftie professionals, a split anti-Tory vote, and was always going to be a very easy Tory hold. As the sensible among us predicted from the start.
When the Tories 'fought' a Labour stronghold (in Manchester Central) they came home with the princely return of 700-odd votes.
Yet I come on here and the Tories have won GE2015!
Plus ca change.
Meanwhile, another YouGov showing a widening Labour lead.
Surely it's time for a thread on that, rather than yet another Ukip/Ed is crap comfort blanket?
0 -
I think it is also a lot more regional. I would expect to see a significant level of WWC support for UKIP in the South-East, the East and Yorkshire; less elsewhere. The WWC is not an homogenous voting block and never has been. The Tories used to get a very big working class vote. UKIP is in a strong position to gain that in some parts of the country. Whether it will win many votes direct from Labour remains to be seen.rcs1000 said:
I think @another_richard is half right:SouthamObserver said:
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.another_richard said: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.
It's WWCM = UKIP, WWCW = Lab0 -
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.0
-
If we put the changes in the National results [ a bit of fun ].
C: 28
L: 24.5
LD 6
UKIP: 25.1
Others 16.4
I wonder who wins what ?0 -
Nom de plumes seem to be all the rage of late.0
-
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.surbiton said:Easterross said: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.
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.
0 -
All those die hard WWC Tory voters in London tower blocks would surely vote UKIP Now. Is that bad for Labour ?SouthamObserver said:
I think it is also a lot more regional. I would expect to see a significant level of WWC support for UKIP in the South-East, the East and Yorkshire; less elsewhere. The WWC is not an homogenous voting block and never has been. The Tories used to get a very big working class vote. UKIP is in a strong position to gain that in some parts of the country. Whether it will win many votes direct from Labour remains to be seen.rcs1000 said:
I think @another_richard is half right:SouthamObserver said:another_richard said: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.
It's WWCM = UKIP, WWCW = Lab
I clearly remember a couple in London: Wife was red and the husband blue, election after election.
0 -
Not as bad as hearing "specific" so frequently misspoken as "pacific" or "percific".Smarmeron said:O/T...sort of
Radio 5 last night, just after the results, the host named the winner as "Generic" several times, instead of Jenrick.
Obviously he had a miss read/ brainfart, but it was amusing.0 -
"Labour ceded the challenger position without a fight"
I am genuinely struggling to see why that matters. Can someone explain?0 -
Is that JackW talking or is it ARSE this time ? The Newark seat today is a lot different from the Newark seat of the 70's.JackW said:
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.surbiton said:Easterross said: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.
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.
The 1997 win ? Labour won a 166 majority. Remember , you lot ended up with just 160 seats !!
This was the 44th safest Tory seat. And, you had to send the whole kitchen furniture there ?0 -
Well, well, well...
Lot's of sour grapes from Kipper and Lab supporters I see.
The result was way above expectations for the Conservatives and Labour has gone backwards.
That's what counts in the end.0 -
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?0
-
It's a very good Tory result and they should feel chuffed. I'm not bothered for myself - as Surbito notes, the result would see me home anyway, but in any case the makeup of the seats could hardly be more different (it's like saying that Worthing is close to Brighton Kemptown - true, but...) but I think Labour should note the efficiency of the Tory postal vote operation as something that does apply generally (they've put a lot of work into that). Also significant that the LibDems lost over 80% of their vote and came behind the Greens again.surbiton said:Easterross said: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.
Do we think it will impact the polls significantly? I'd think there should be a Tory bounce for a few days and UKIP will be blunted. Hard to guess beyond that.
0 -
W&SE I called perfectly, even piling in on Labour when the odds had moved exactly as long as they would go and winning some party % bets. Newark...my political antennae took a round off.antifrank1 said:
You shouldn't have said that. I was thinking you were a genius!Quincel said:I can't believe my Elections Game guess was so close, I thought they'd win by half that and just didn't work out what turnout would translate a 10-15% lead into a 7,000 majority...
0 -
CD13 said:
A good decision by Farage not to stand.
The man's a political genius.
But Ukip need a few high profile Euro people to to tell UK where to go (or else Rotherham Childrens' Services to hit the headlines again).
No, the BBC always say that any party's vote has been slashed after a BE. They simply don't understand that by-election turnouts are lower.peter_from_putney said:
Not really - just the usual and inevitable anti-Tory bias from the BBC.Scrapheap_as_was said:Well I'm massively confused, when I went to sleep 3 hours ago, we'd heard the Newark result and it was clearly viewed on This Week as being a much better result than expected for the Tories...
Radio 2 news headlines at 7am tells me how the Tories have retained the Newark seat but have "seen their majority slashed". UKIP came second again for the xth time and were pleased with that with their vote going up 5x over...
How confusing!
0 -
"The result was way above expectations for the Conservatives".GIN1138 said:Well, well, well...
Lot's of sour grapes from Kipper and Lab supporters I see.
The result was way above expectations for the Conservatives and Labour has gone backwards.
That's what counts in the end.
That part I agree. When this is your first by-election win in government since 1989, it is above expectations !
0 -
-
What about Roger Helmer as UKIP candidate could have given the "false" impression that UKIP were a reactionary party from the Tory heartland?
While there is an element of truth in your electoral map, it is clear that WWC men are more kipper and WWC women more Labour. Ethnic minorities are less Labour than they once were, but more mixed ethnic areas are particularly hard on the kippers.
I can forsee that there will be a fair number of second places for the kippers next year, but likely to be no first places.another_richard said: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.0 -
Lower turnout reduces the percentages as well ? I thought the totals were 100% always.Monksfield said:CD13 said:A good decision by Farage not to stand.
The man's a political genius.
But Ukip need a few high profile Euro people to to tell UK where to go (or else Rotherham Childrens' Services to hit the headlines again).
No, the BBC always say that any party's vote has been slashed after a BE. They simply don't understand that by-election turnouts are lower.peter_from_putney said:
Not really - just the usual and inevitable anti-Tory bias from the BBC.Scrapheap_as_was said:Well I'm massively confused, when I went to sleep 3 hours ago, we'd heard the Newark result and it was clearly viewed on This Week as being a much better result than expected for the Tories...
Radio 2 news headlines at 7am tells me how the Tories have retained the Newark seat but have "seen their majority slashed". UKIP came second again for the xth time and were pleased with that with their vote going up 5x over...
How confusing!
So, the Tory percentage of the vote did not go down by 8.9%, you are saying.0 -
Speaking of The Election Game, who is this Sam C fellow? Guessed 7453, a mere 50 from the actual majority!0
-
Lest we forget ...
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
0 -
The French press are in absolutely no doubt which head of state is the star of today's ceremonies......SouthamObserver said:Lest we forget ...
0 -
I rate, and like, TSE but agree his bias is showing here.surbiton said:TSE's pro Tory bias clearly shows in the report.
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"
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.0 -
Also, in parts of the country there is a sizeable middle class private sector Labour vote. See London, for example; and Scotland.foxinsoxuk said:What about Roger Helmer as UKIP candidate could have given the "false" impression that UKIP were a reactionary party from the Tory heartland?
While there is an element of truth in your electoral map, it is clear that WWC men are more kipper and WWC women more Labour. Ethnic minorities are less Labour than they once were, but more mixed ethnic areas are particularly hard on the kippers.
I can forsee that there will be a fair number of second places for the kippers next year, but likely to be no first places.another_richard said: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.
0 -
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.JWisemann said: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?
0 -
Mr. Fett, that depends on several things. Were the Conservatives the closest challengers? Plus, government parties tend to fare poorly at by-elections, especially those where the closest challenger is the leading party of opposition. Instead, Labour went backwards.
I wonder how Mercer's feeling now.0 -
Lots of the usual nonsense I see on the WWC.
Labour will carry that demographic easily at the GE.
Prepared to bet on that.0 -
The Tories think Labour should have spent a huge sum of money when they had precisely zero chance of winning. The Tories would have sent the whole kitchen furniture to fight a by election in the Rhonnda ! They probably wouldn't find their way !SouthamObserver said:"Labour ceded the challenger position without a fight"
I am genuinely struggling to see why that matters. Can someone explain?
Actually, I am quite impressed that Labour voters did not hold their collective noses and vote purple. I am not so sure I would have been so principled.
It would be interesting where the 17.4% Lib Dem vote went. That would be an interesting thread in itself.
Oh ! And Clegg is great for the Lib Dems. They should be renamed the Jonestown Party. That's where they are heading, I am afraid.0 -
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.0 -
Now sure how Labour can say this wasn't a target. From 2010 it would have taken a 15% swing for them to take it. Conservatives achieved that in both Crewe and Nantwich and Norwich North by elections in the last Parliament.
0 -
Could it be not just Dave Cameron that reads this blog, but SamCam too?Quincel said:
Speaking of The Election Game, who is this Sam C fellow? Guessed 7453, a mere 50 from the actual majority!
0 -
If so it's clear which of the pair should be the professional politician!foxinsoxuk said:Could it be not just Dave Cameron that reads this blog, but SamCam too?
Quincel said:Speaking of The Election Game, who is this Sam C fellow? Guessed 7453, a mere 50 from the actual majority!
0 -
That's seriously impressive oratory. Verbs and everything ;-)SouthamObserver said:Lest we forget ...
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
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?
0 -
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.BobaFett said:
I rate, and like, TSE but agree his bias is showing here.surbiton said:TSE's pro Tory bias clearly shows in the report.
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"
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.
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.0 -
@BobaFett @surbiton This was our host's judgement at the outset:
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/02/the-value-bet-in-newark-is-3-1-on-labour/
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.0 -
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, their vote went down by 13%. They held the Council and Ed Davey is the MP>ToryJim said: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.0 -
Solid for Conservatives
OK for UKIP, but no earthquakes in sight
Bad for Labour. They didn't need to win but they didn't need to go down compared to 2010
0 -
I ended up with no seats in 1997 as I didn't support the Conservatives in 1997.surbiton said:
Is that JackW talking or is it ARSE this time ? The Newark seat today is a lot different from the Newark seat of the 70's.JackW said:
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.surbiton said:Easterross said: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.
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.
The 1997 win ? Labour won a 166 majority. Remember , you lot ended up with just 160 seats !!
This was the 44th safest Tory seat. And, you had to send the whole kitchen furniture there ?
Safe seats in by-elections are a contradiction in terms.
Are you really complaining that a party fought hard to hold a seat - That is bizarre. Why didn't Labour fight ? .... if not to win but to dent UKIP ?
0 -
Labour do not have the money the Tories have. We will fight 105 seats. And they are looking OK.antifrank said:@BobaFett @surbiton This was our host's judgement at the outset:
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/02/the-value-bet-in-newark-is-3-1-on-labour/
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.0 -
An extraordinary woman.CarlottaVance said:
The French press are in absolutely no doubt which head of state is the star of today's ceremonies......SouthamObserver said:Lest we forget ...
0 -
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.antifrank said:@BobaFett @surbiton This was our host's judgement at the outset:
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/02/the-value-bet-in-newark-is-3-1-on-labour/
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.
As for your poser: that's easy.
Fight the battles you can win. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats.
0 -
One nation Labour, but the one nation starts north of the Severn and the Wash?surbiton said:
Labour do not have the money the Tories have. We will fight 105 seats. And they are looking OK.antifrank said:@BobaFett @surbiton This was our host's judgement at the outset:
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/02/the-value-bet-in-newark-is-3-1-on-labour/
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.0 -
Run your finger down the LibDem seats and find over 37 realistic losses to take you to under 20. It'll take some doing.surbiton said:
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>ToryJim said: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.
0 -
This was a winnable seat, and labour went backwards.Slackbladder said:
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.BobaFett said:
I rate, and like, TSE but agree his bias is showing here.surbiton said:TSE's pro Tory bias clearly shows in the report.
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"
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.
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.
Which orifice are you talking out of this morning ? The 44th safest Tory seat !!!!!
0 -
They polled 700 FFS. There is no spinning that I am afraid.Slackbladder said:
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.BobaFett said:
I rate, and like, TSE but agree his bias is showing here.surbiton said:TSE's pro Tory bias clearly shows in the report.
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"
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.
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.
0 -
Cycling fans, just curious what you make of this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/27729769
"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.0 -
Dear oh dear, the tis a mere flesh wound defence is out in force this morning.
Yes, Labour have moved a couple of points further ahead in the opinion polls. However in a seat they fought from second (in their worst national showing since Foot) they have gone backwards and fallen behind UKIP (who had a good result), thereby sending the message that they are not the opposition, not the place to protest. Not the place to look for change if change is wanted.
The Tory result was good to very good. To lose only single digits in a by election when you are in government and as a result of sleaze is a strong performance.
Labour soft-pedalled? Maybe, but if so they are retarded, and need to consider whether they actually want to win in 2015. If you're not going to bother in 250-300 seats, what so you think will happen when your vote starts to wobble in the other 350? You'll have no base left to come back from elsewhere.
Basically, you got pwnd. Enjoy your 5 point opinion poll leads for the next couple of week/days/hours0 -
LONDON, mate. LONDON ! The blooming capital of the world where even the roads outside Buck House is painted red !antifrank said:
One nation Labour, but the one nation starts north of the Severn and the Wash?surbiton said:
Labour do not have the money the Tories have. We will fight 105 seats. And they are looking OK.antifrank said:@BobaFett @surbiton This was our host's judgement at the outset:
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/02/the-value-bet-in-newark-is-3-1-on-labour/
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.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
