Newark By-election

[Deleted]

Two candidates have already been selected (it's so close to the next election, this isn't unusual)

Robert Jenrick (Conservative)
Michael Payne (Labour)

[greatkingrat]

I don't think that means they will automatically be the by-election candidates.

[Andrew_S]

Apr 29, 2014 21:07:30 GMT greatkingrat said:

I don't think that means they will automatically be the by-election candidates.

Robert Jenrick has been confirmed as the Tory candidate.

[Robert Waller]

Apr 29, 2014 19:03:34 GMT myth11 said:

i know this the seat well as i lived there for 13 years and went to school at Tuxford and i just can not see anything other than a con hold esp as the current numbers at the dc level are 29 con 5 indy 4 lib dem 2 lab and no ukip plus ukip did not do that well in the 2013 locals.

I also partially grew up in this constituency (Newark town) and I don't see Labour having a chance - apart from 1997 they only ever won the seat called Newark when it had part of the Dukeries coalfield around Ollerton, Edwinstowe and Bilsthorpe.
If Farage stands for UKIP it would be an interesting contest, but I doubt if UKIP would win with a less high profile candidate.

[Andrew_S]

Twitter feeds for the two candidates selected so far:

twitter.com/RobertJenrick

twitter.com/MichaelPayneUK

Interesting that Michael Payne has about 6.5 times as many followers as Robert Jenrick at the moment: 1,674 vs 256.

[Deleted]

ITV News; "If Farage loses Newark, that could be the end of the UKIP bubble"

[Andrew_S]

2005 actual result: (previous boundaries)

Con 21,946
Lab 15,482
LD 7,276
Oth 992

Con maj 6,464

2005 notional result: (current boundaries)

Con 22,950
Lab 12,873
LD 8,354
Oth 1,267

Con maj 10,077

Difference: 3,613

Lab maj in 1997 was 3,016.

[finsobruce]

Apr 29, 2014 17:52:47 GMT @ianrobo said:

2010

Conservative Patrick Mercer 27,590 53.9 +3.4
Labour Ian Campbell 11,438 22.3 −6.0
Liberal Democrat Pauline Jenkins 10,246 20.0 +1.6
UKIP Rev Major Tom Irvine 1,954 3.8 +1.0

Ground control to Major Tom
Check your postal votes and put your rosette on...

[Sibboleth]

Apr 29, 2014 21:29:46 GMT Robert Waller said:

I also partially grew up in this constituency (Newark town) and I don't see Labour having a chance - apart from 1997 they only ever won the seat called Newark when it had part of the Dukeries coalfield around Ollerton, Edwinstowe and Bilsthorpe.

And even in 1997 (which was 1997) it included Retford.

[carlton43]

Apr 29, 2014 21:32:58 GMT @fraser said:

Newark is perfect for Farage he is after all an anagram of the constituency.

Ho! Ho! Ho!  And you three support Cameron!!!

[carlton43]

Apr 29, 2014 20:03:29 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Apr 29, 2014 19:56:35 GMT @ianrobo said:

just repeating the facts

And Farage would be stupid to fight this seat. IF he won and it is a bigger if than some think he would bound to lose in the GE. He is a man of Kent and should fight a seat there if he is serious at all.

To bastardise Chaucer and my memories of reading Chaucer for ALevel, he most certainly is a man of Kent.

That feels more like Bowdler on an off day to me.

[carlton43]

Apr 29, 2014 20:04:23 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Ah, Sibboleth, we great minds. He is indeed very Kentish.

My jury is still out on both of your strands.

[independentukip]

Apr 29, 2014 22:07:50 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

ITV News; "If Farage loses Newark, that could be the end of the UKIP bubble"

So the editorial line of ITN is that support for UKIP is a mere "bubble" and were a candidate with no local association and as has been shown here a party with little support in local elections "lose", their editorial decision may well be that their claimed bubble has burst. What is their basis for expecting UKIP to win here? It is no wonder increasing numbers are rejecting this type of rubbish which claims for itself the adage "professional journalism".

[Davıd Boothroyd]

I think you may be exaggerating the paucity of UKIP organisation in Newark. The local branch was set up in March 2013 (source: www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/UKIP-targets-town-voters ) and it did manage to contest all the Nottinghamshire County Council divisions in the constituency a few weeks later, doing reasonably well in some of them.

[myth11]

and just to do the effects of last boundary changes to death
area added
Bingham East, Bingham West, Cranmer,Oak,Thoroton,Rampton and Lowdham currently held by 9 con and 1 lib dem
area lost
Retford currently held by 9 lab v 1 con and that con has a high chance of losing his seat in 2014.

[Deleted]

the Zombie Review version of Newark

[Devonian]

James Forsyth in the Spectator

Nigel Farage told me on Monday how closely he was watching the situation in Newark. He introduced the subject by saying, “there’s one other thing that could change everything”.

But Farage’s comments to me yesterday make me think that he’s unlikely to stand in Newark. He said that he’d ‘been looking at candidates’ and mused on how just one MP would make such a difference. He pointed to how the Canadian Reform party had won a seat in a by-election in 1989 and then go on to become the largest opposition party in at the next election.

What struck me about this anecdote was how taken Farage was by the fact that the Reform party had picked “a completely unknown geography mistress, who lived in the town, who had lots of relations there”. He seemed to think that this was the key to their success, and it is this that makes me think he’ll take some persuading not to back a local candidate in Newark. Indeed, one of the things that Farage took away from his experience in Buckingham at the last election was how hard it is for an outsider to turn up a constituency and immediately lay claim to representing it in parliament.[...]

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/04/why-nigel-farage-might-not-stand-in-newark/

[thirdchill]

Newark presents a different problem for UKIP than some of the more recent previous by-elections.

In Eastleigh, both of the other parties in contention are in government.

In Rotherham and South Shields, no other main party besides labour had a chance of winning the seat or coming close. UKIP can position themselves as the only alternative to labour.

In Newark though, you have a Labour vote that is nowhere near as weak as eastleigh, with a lot of lib dem vote potentially to squeeze. Labour are a problem for UKIP here, they aren't going to be squeezed in the same way that us and the lib dems are in by-elections in this parliament.

[independentukip]

Apr 29, 2014 23:31:49 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

I think you may be exaggerating the paucity of UKIP organisation in Newark. The local branch was set up in March 2013 (source: www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/UKIP-targets-town-voters ) and it did manage to contest all the Nottinghamshire County Council divisions in the constituency a few weeks later, doing reasonably well in some of them.

If that was a reply to my post it will be noted I've said nothing about UKIP organisation in Newark but if as you state there has only been a branch there for little over a year that does not suggest the well developed party structures usually required for by-election success are present.

As for the County elections it will be recalled that UKIP were successful in getting a County Councillor elected in 2009 by the name of Tom Irvine in Hucknall ward. By chance the UKIP candidate in Newark in the 2010 General Election was the same Tom Irvine. I don't think his result in 2010 had any effect on 2013 but sadly and despite the great success UKIP acheived in many other parts of England he like all the fine UKIP candidates in Notts were not successful in their effort to be elected. Doing reasonably well in some wards was not enough to prevent the good people of Notts coming under the control of the Labour Party.

Thus my last point. A by-election at this stage in this parliament bearing in mind the complete collapse in support for the Liberal Democrats and reduced support for the Conservatives must surely result in the greatest degree of confidence by the Labour Party that they can win this by-election against all comers. If Labour aren't seriously challenging for this seat at this time their candidates in the real marginals must be bricking themselves in case they've wasted years of their lives for nothing.

[johnloony]

If you apply the same swings to and from the parties as have happened in recent parliamentary by-elections (excluding Bradford West as an outlier) to the GE in Newark in 2010 you get the following percentages:

Constituency . . . . . . . Con. Lab. UKIP
Wythenshaw & Sale E. 42.8 33.5 18.2
South Shields. . . . . . . 43.8 20.8 28.0
Eastleigh. . . . . . . . . . 40.0 22.5 28.0
Middlesbrough. . . . . 41.4 36.9 11.9
Croydon North. . . . . . 46.6 31.0 07.8
Rotherham. . . . . . . . 42.6 23.9 19.7
Cardiff South & P. . . . 45.5 30.7 07.3
Manchester Central . 46.6 38.7 06.8
Corby. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.3 32.0 18.1
Feltham & Heston . . 47.6 31.1 07.3

In other words, the Conservative Party wins comfortably in each case. Even if you combine the biggest Conservative fall (-15.6% in Corby) with the biggest Labour increase (+16.4% in Manchester Central) you still only get Labour scraping ahead by a margin of 0.4%.

In order for UKIP to win, there would have to be a net swing of 25% from Conservative to UKIP. The biggest UKIP increases in this parliament have been +24.2% in South Shields, +24.2% in Eastleigh, +15.9% in Rotherham, and 14.4% in Wythenshaw & Sale East; the Conservative fall was only 22% even in Bradford South.

In other words, the only way the Conservative Party could lose if Labour and UKIP supporters were to combine themselves in unprecedently huge amounts of tactical voting for one or the other. I very much doubt that Labour supporters would want to vote UKIP just in order to defeat the Conservative candidate, or vice-versa.

Therefore I am cautiously optimistic that the Conservative Party will hold the seat in the by-election.

As an afterthought, the same swings would put the Lib Dems below 10% in almost all cases; we can safely assume that the Lib Dem candidate will come a poor 4th.