politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Conservatives win a by-election whilst in government fo
Comments
-
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.0 -
UKIP.Stuart_Dickson said:
On who? LD or UKIP?Pulpstar said:
I'm on at 11-8 with Hills.Stuart_Dickson said:Ladbrokes - Next UK GE - Vote Share Match Bet
Lib Dems 5/6
UKIP 5/6
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.0 -
IDS complaining about Romanian "self employment" scam
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.html0 -
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?0 -
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.
0 -
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.0
-
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.MarqueeMark said: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 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!0 -
2003: Prime Minister Tony Blair leads Britain into war with Iraq based on filmsy "evidence"MarqueeMark said:
1997 Labour leader - Tony Blair.
2015 Labour leader - Ed Miliband.
Compare and contrast....
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
0 -
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..."MarqueeMark said: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.
very moving.0 -
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.
0 -
F1: Pirelli have released tyre choices for four more races:
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.0 -
The swing from Conservative to Labour in Christchurch was 11.4%. In Newark it was 2.1%. That's one of the big differences.CarlottaVance said: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 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 2015.0 -
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.0 -
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.Charles said:
Apart from the 27 ratified amendments, you mean?Slackbladder said:
The monarchy will do what it always has done. Move and change as needed. That's one of the strengths of our (unwritten) constitution.SouthamObserver said:
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.antifrank said:
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.SouthamObserver said:
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 ...
Unlike the US, where they're clinging to their Constitution like its some holy relic which can never change.
(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!)0 -
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...RochdalePioneers said:
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 Blair0 -
He had a funeral to go to this morning.TCPoliticalBetting said: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.
That's why he left early.
0 -
Indeed, Mr. Tokyo. The EU's propensity towards creepiness has already been widely observed.0
-
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.TCPoliticalBetting said: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.
0 -
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:
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.
Candidate Relative Change
Roger Helmer (UKIP) 578.27%
Robert Jenrick (Con) -16.38%
Michael Payne (Lab) -20.82%
David Watts (LD) -87.05%
That doesn't seem good at all for Labour as the official opposition.
0 -
@Antifrank
This seat tells us almost nothing about the GE.
I'm surprised one as wise as you fell for the Tory spin.0 -
I wonder whether Lord Ashcroft will do a post-mortem poll to help us understand the shifts between parties?0
-
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!0 -
-
Newark shows the lack of enthusiasm for EdM's Labour. This week I heard an Italian journalist call EdM " poverino " , poor little Labour.BobaFett said:@Antifrank
This seat tells us almost nothing about the GE.
I'm surprised one as wise as you fell for the Tory spin.
0 -
The range of excuses today is most impressive.BobaFett said:@Antifrank
This seat tells us almost nothing about the GE.
I'm surprised one as wise as you fell for the Tory spin.
So much for 'One Nation' Labour.0 -
F1: no new parts (again) for Force India in Canada:
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.0 -
@RichardTyndall
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.
0 -
Labour gained 3 seats in the May local elections , 2 from Conservative and 1 from Independent , the answer is NOOblitusSumMe said: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?0 -
'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.'ToryJim said:
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.0 -
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.
0 -
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...).0 -
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?
Its a funny thing PB maths......0 -
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.ToryJim said:
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.TCPoliticalBetting said: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.
0 -
@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!0 -
As opposed to the shattered expectations management from Labour?BobaFett said:@Antifrank
This seat tells us almost nothing about the GE.
I'm surprised one as wise as you fell for the Tory spin.0 -
Anthony Wells' analysis on the other channel should provide a much-needed reality check for the PB Tories.
Anthony Wells or the PBTs? You pays your money, you makes your choice.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/0 -
Do you think Labour should only campaign in winnable seats at the GE next year?BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.0 -
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.
0 -
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.0 -
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.ToryJim said: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.
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.0 -
One thing we see time and time again:
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...0 -
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.0 -
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said: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...).
(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.0 -
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.BobaFett said:
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.
0 -
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 allHurstLlama said:
Do you think Labour should only campaign in winnable seats at the GE next year?BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.0 -
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!"ToryJim said:0 -
I read that as post-modern.Richard_Nabavi said:I wonder whether Lord Ashcroft will do a post-mortem poll to help us understand the shifts between parties?
could be interesting
0 -
Congrats to the Blue team!
Is Newark UKIP's Thermopylae? A heroic stand but defeated to a man by Xerxes' Tory hordes?
0 -
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?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said: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...).
(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.0 -
You can see the bar charts can't you.rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said: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...).
(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.
Only the Tories can beat UKIP here, with a big arrow pointing to the Lib Dems saying "The Lib Dems can't win here"0 -
Aggregate by-election scores since GE 2010 update:
UKIP have now overtaken the LibDems into third place. Tories trailing first-placed Labour by some way though.0 -
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .MonikerDiCanio said:
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.BobaFett said:
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.0 -
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.Socrates said:
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!"ToryJim said:
By implication the expectation should be for advancement in reasonable sized steps in these early stages.0 -
Oh now you're just making stuff up.MonikerDiCanio said:
In 2010 the boundary changes were very minor and arguably in Labour's favour.BobaFett said:
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.
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.0 -
And of course, 9th lost deposit for the LDs out of 16 Great Britain by-elections.Sunil_Prasannan said:Aggregate by-election scores since GE 2010 update:
UKIP have now overtaken the LibDems into third place. Tories trailing first-placed Labour by some way though.0 -
Swing from Con to UKIP ~15%0
-
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.MarkSenior said:
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .MonikerDiCanio said:
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.BobaFett said:
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.
0 -
I've backed Rafa Nadal to win today and gone for less than 36.5 and a half games.0
-
If Labour had fought hard in this by-election they could have hoped to derive the following benefits:BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.
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.0 -
Either your usually well-placed humour chip is malfunctioning today or we've sadly reached the shallow depths of your understanding of electoral politics.MonikerDiCanio said:
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.MarkSenior said:
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .MonikerDiCanio said:
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.BobaFett said:
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.0 -
You've ditched the purple avatar.Sunil_Prasannan said:
And of course, 9th lost deposit for the LDs out of 16 Great Britain by-elections.Sunil_Prasannan said:Aggregate by-election scores since GE 2010 update:
UKIP have now overtaken the LibDems into third place. Tories trailing first-placed Labour by some way though.
Does this mean your dubious flirtation with the purples is over?0 -
If that had been Con to Lab, Labour would have taken then seat...Sunil_Prasannan said:Swing from Con to UKIP ~15%
0 -
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 ?MonikerDiCanio said:
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.MarkSenior said:
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .MonikerDiCanio said:
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.BobaFett said:
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.
0 -
t
just as there will be Tory/Lab driftback for current Kippers I think that there will be NOTA driftback.rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said: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...).
(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.
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").0 -
Have I ditched it? I didn't noticeTheScreamingEagles said:
You've ditched the purple avatar.Sunil_Prasannan said:
And of course, 9th lost deposit for the LDs out of 16 Great Britain by-elections.Sunil_Prasannan said:Aggregate by-election scores since GE 2010 update:
UKIP have now overtaken the LibDems into third place. Tories trailing first-placed Labour by some way though.
Does this mean your dubious flirtation with the purples is over?
0 -
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.0
-
0
-
Mr. Eagles, interesting bet.
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.0 -
+1OblitusSumMe said:
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.
0 -
Not quite if Labour had got the swing they'd have been 250 or so behind.GIN1138 said:
If that had been Con to Lab, Labour would have taken then seat...Sunil_Prasannan said:Swing from Con to UKIP ~15%
0 -
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 ?MarkSenior said:
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 ?MonikerDiCanio said:
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.MarkSenior said:
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .MonikerDiCanio said:
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.BobaFett said:
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.
0 -
You must be pleased the Greens beat the Lib Dems !Neil said:
Either your usually well-placed humour chip is malfunctioning today or we've sadly reached the shallow depths of your understanding of electoral politics.MonikerDiCanio said:
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.MarkSenior said:
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .MonikerDiCanio said:
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.BobaFett said:
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.0 -
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.Socrates said:
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!"ToryJim said:
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.0 -
The famed Morris Dancer Lay tipsMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, interesting bet.
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.
0 -
There wasnt a whole lot riding on 5th place last night!Pulpstar said:
You must be pleased the Greens beat the Lib Dems !Neil said:
Either your usually well-placed humour chip is malfunctioning today or we've sadly reached the shallow depths of your understanding of electoral politics.MonikerDiCanio said:
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.MarkSenior said:
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .MonikerDiCanio said:
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.BobaFett said:
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.0 -
Today really makes you proud to be British (and American, Canadian and all those nations that took part in Operation Neptune)0
-
The oh-so-solid 2010 Lib-Dem to Labour switchers weren't quite so solid after-all were they?MarqueeMark said:
+1OblitusSumMe said:
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.
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.
0 -
NaughtyPulpstar said:
The famed Morris Dancer Lay tipsMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, interesting bet.
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.0 -
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 .MonikerDiCanio said:
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 ?MarkSenior said:
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 ?MonikerDiCanio said:
The 4,000 to 5,000 increase in the Tory majority was the work of Brown, not the Boundaries Commission.MarkSenior said:
That statement is false . The boundary changes added around 4,000 to 5,000 to the Conservative majority .MonikerDiCanio said:
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.BobaFett said:
It was on different boundaries. Do keep up!MonikerDiCanio said:
Winnable for Blair but unwinnable for Ed Miliband.BobaFett said:@RichardTyndall
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.0 -
I don't think it says anything about the LibDems as a party. It says something about the remaining LibDem supporters.HurstLlama said:
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?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said: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...).
(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.
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.0 -
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?Easterross said: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.0 -
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.
0 -
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
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?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said: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...).
(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.0 -
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 complete0 -
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).0 -
Are you following @RealTimeDDay ?TheScreamingEagles said:Today really makes you proud to be British (and American, Canadian and all those nations that took part in Operation Neptune)
0 -
Whether your Tory, Labour, UKIP, Green, Loony, etc...
One thing we can all agree on is that Lib-Dem 2.2% = LOL!0 -
I am.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Are you following @RealTimeDDay ?TheScreamingEagles said:Today really makes you proud to be British (and American, Canadian and all those nations that took part in Operation Neptune)
0 -
The Independent candidate in Newark was just 45 votes short of saving his deposit. It would have been nice to see him do better.0
-
@RochdalePioneers wrote :
"Labour getting nowhere near PROVES that Ed is Carp ..."
......................................................................................
Ed Miliband Will Never Be PM - Piscatorial Maximus0 -
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.TheScreamingEagles said:Today really makes you proud to be British (and American, Canadian and all those nations that took part in Operation Neptune)
0 -
Newark, and the multitude of excuses, shows us that Labour's 'One Nation' tag is complete bollocks.0
-
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.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
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?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said: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...).
(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.0 -
It sounds fishy.JackW said:@RochdalePioneers wrote :
"Labour getting nowhere near PROVES that Ed is Carp ..."
......................................................................................
Ed Miliband Will Never Be PM - Piscatorial Maximus0 -
So would I.rcs1000 said:
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.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
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?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said: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...).
(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.0 -
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.RochdalePioneers said: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.0 -
Betting post
You'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, 4.50 -
Huzzah for George Osborne
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 working0 -
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.)rcs1000 said:
I don't think it says anything about the LibDems as a party. It says something about the remaining LibDem supporters.HurstLlama said:
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?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said: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...).
(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.
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.0 -
@RealTimeWWII Is also worth a follow. Currently up to 1942TheScreamingEagles said:
I am.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Are you following @RealTimeDDay ?TheScreamingEagles said:Today really makes you proud to be British (and American, Canadian and all those nations that took part in Operation Neptune)
0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
