Newark By-election

[Devil Wincarnate]

The PSP result is clearly unfair.They have been crowded out by the superior resources and disproportionate media attention afforded to Establishment darlings such as Money Reform,two blokes from Nottinghamshire,and a pensioner dressed as Elvis.

[swindonlad]

May 31, 2014 17:45:06 GMT Devonian said:

Saw this on Mike Smithson's twitter

Mike Smithson @msmithsonpb · 4h

UKIP using LibDem style bar chart to win over the anti-CON vote in Newark





It doesn't quite say "Labour cannot win here vote UKIP" but that is the implication. My guess is that we'll see quite a few of this type of bar chart leaflets from UKIP in their target seats next year.

Looks like this was a benefit to the Conservatives, it managed to say to voters if you don't like UKIP you need to vote Conservative. As has been mentioned here people where coming across voters who said they would vote Conservative for the first time to stop UKIP

[East Anglian Lefty]

Wonder why Farage was claiming the majority was 2500 votes. He must have known by then that wasn't true.

Something for all three of the parties here, though obviously it's the Tories who have most to be pleased about. By no means a great Labour result, but I think we'll take that - we didn't collapse and we must have been at least close to UKIP in Newark town, if not ahead. Without the squeeze on our vote or the UKIP activist base in the general election, getting back into second shouldn't prove too problematic.

[bossmark]

Apart from Eastleigh have the Lib Dems lost their deposit in every by-election since 2010?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jun 6, 2014 7:59:20 GMT bossmark said:

Apart from Eastleigh have the Lib Dems lost their deposit in every by-election since 2010?

Saved in:

Oldham East and Saddleworth
Leicester South
Feltham and Heston
Manchester Central
Cardiff South and Penarth
Middlesbrough
Eastleigh

[bossmark]

OK thanks David, just a little side bet with my mate at work he said they had lost all their deposits apart from Eastleigh

[Deleted]

So, in what circumstances can UKIP win a byelection ??

[justin124]

A good result for the Tories - but probably of no more lasting significance than Glenrothes was for Labour in Autumn 2008 given the disproportionate effort invested here compared with the other parties. A bit surprised the Independent did not ask for a recount - being just 40 odd votes from saving his deposit.

[johnloony]

This is the biggest Conservative majority in a by-election while in government since Beaconsfield 1982, and before that Arundel & Shoreham 1971.

[johnloony]

Jun 6, 2014 8:30:12 GMT @robin said:

So, in what circumstances can UKIP win a byelection ??

With a better candidate;
in a Con/Lab marginal rather than a sfae Conservative seat;
in Lincolnshire or Essex or Kent or Norfolk instead of Nottinghamshire;
in somewhere where there are more recently-arrived migrant workers.

[Deleted]

Jun 6, 2014 5:18:07 GMT baloo said:

A very pleasing result. My only problem with it is that this will give the leadership more confidence in their policy of trying to control everything and everyone all of the time. In the long term it isn't a good strategy.

and you can not throw the kind of resources into every campaign as this one and this was the 44th safest Tory seat and yet they sent hundreds there.

Given the idiotic candidate UKIP picked then their result is good, now if they had picked say a Diane James like figure they could have won this I believe.

[Deleted]

Jun 6, 2014 9:15:13 GMT johnloony said:

Jun 6, 2014 8:30:12 GMT @robin said:

So, in what circumstances can UKIP win a byelection ??

With a better candidate;
in a Con/Lab marginal rather than a sfae Conservative seat;
in Lincolnshire or Essex or Kent or Norfolk instead of Nottinghamshire;
in somewhere where there are more recently-arrived migrant workers.

I agree that there are more ideal circs for UKIP, but I suppose my point is that you take what you are given, & an opposition/ protest party really should be doing better (& winning), looking at historical precedents.

[Deleted]

Of course, in a different situation Labour could have been the challenger party – Labour would have needed a swing of 16% or so to win Newark, the sort of swing that the Conservatives got in Norwich North and Crewe & Nantwich. The fact is though that we knew anyway that Labour weren’t in that sort of position – they aren’t an opposition that’s tearing away into the sunset, they are an opposition holding onto a relatively modest poll lead. In the present political context, we shouldn’t expect them to be competitive in a seat like Newark.

[carlton43]

Jun 6, 2014 9:11:23 GMT johnloony said:

This is the biggest Conservative majority in a by-election while in government since Beaconsfield 1982, and before that Arundel & Shoreham 1971.

In other words they were defending not only a safe seat by majority but a safe seat by phlegmatic and static natured middle Englanders. Don't be deceived that this was good Labour territory for it is not the same seat as the one they won on different boundaries. I thought the Labour result in these circumstances was rather good and must have benefitted from a quality candidate. Comment on the LibDems is pointless here as only the hardcore would have stayed loyal. Their result has no significance for them at all. 

[The Bishop]

Jun 6, 2014 9:47:49 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Of course, in a different situation Labour could have been the challenger party – Labour would have needed a swing of 16% or so to win Newark, the sort of swing that the Conservatives got in Norwich North and Crewe & Nantwich. The fact is though that we knew anyway that Labour weren’t in that sort of position – they aren’t an opposition that’s tearing away into the sunset, they are an opposition holding onto a relatively modest poll lead. In the present political context, we shouldn’t expect them to be competitive in a seat like Newark.

Of course these are not the same circumstances as pre-1997 - it is rare for oppositions to return to power after one term.

If it happens this time round, it will be a major achievement.

As for the Newark result, we would probably have held onto second but for the almost universal (but, it seems, mistaken) belief that UKIP had a real chance here.

[carlton43]

Jun 6, 2014 8:30:12 GMT @robin said:

So, in what circumstances can UKIP win a byelection ??

As with most parties, when the circumstances are propitious. Just now I would opt for a northern Labour seat where the local authority is monolithic but lacklustre and incompetent; where the member is poor quality and without personal appeal; where neither LibDems nor Conservatives have a chance of winning but do have a respectable rump vote to squeeze; and where UKIP field a local with honest credentials and a winning manner.

In the south, a declining coastal town with modest majority and each party having a significant share of past vote; where we have a branch and previous success to build upon; with a sound local candidate. On balance we are attracting a disproportionate male to female vote, and elderly to young. For that reason I favour using attractive younger female candidates wherever possible. Our female spokespersons impress more than the males. If we needed to change leader I would support a female candidate.

[carlton43]

Jun 6, 2014 9:34:51 GMT @ianrobo said:

Jun 6, 2014 5:18:07 GMT baloo said:

A very pleasing result. My only problem with it is that this will give the leadership more confidence in their policy of trying to control everything and everyone all of the time. In the long term it isn't a good strategy.

and you can not throw the kind of resources into every campaign as this one and this was the 44th safest Tory seat and yet they sent hundreds there.

Given the idiotic candidate UKIP picked then their result is good, now if they had picked say a Diane James like figure they could have won this I believe.

I think you are wrong Ian on most counts. The campaign is usually not seen in terms of candidate but of tone/feeling, policy/theme, and party/tribal by most voters. UKIP voters were drawn by the party and the bandwagon. I doubt if a significant number failed to vote just because Helmer was the candidate. That type of person is not in the UKIP demographic. I think Nigel and Diane have a higher profile and for that reason alone would have had an energizing effect that maximized the UKIP vote, but neither would have been within at least 4000 of winning. The party knew at the outset that this appeared to be much better a prospect than actuality would show. It was in fact one of theTop 100 least likely to be won in England in my opinion. That is why Helmer made rather a good choice. He is in and of the region and would not be damaged or upset by defeat, just revert to being an MEP.

[Richard Allen]

Jun 6, 2014 7:43:41 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Wonder why Farage was claiming the majority was 2500 votes. He must have known by then that wasn't true.

Chances are the early boxes were from Newark itself and UKIP's number crunchers made the silly mistake of assuming that they would be representative of the whole constituency.

[carlton43]

Jun 6, 2014 10:16:26 GMT Richard Allen said:

Jun 6, 2014 7:43:41 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Wonder why Farage was claiming the majority was 2500 votes. He must have known by then that wasn't true.

Chances are the early boxes were from Newark itself and UKIP's number crunchers made the silly mistake of assuming that they would be representative of the whole constituency.

Knowing the area rather well Richard, I agree with you. The town is really the only part that suits our demographic. Southwell is settled LibDem/Conservative and must have gone solidly Conservative, and many of the numerous villages are very old-style Conservative/LibDem and have been quite deaf to UKIP blandishments. This very much not our sort of seat.

[The Bishop]

There is persistent, albeit anecdotal, evidence that Helmer actually created a significant *anti*-UKIP vote.

He was a terrible choice of candidate for the party, as the result confirms.