UK parliamentary by-elections 2014

[YL]

Anything but a Tory hold will start alarm bells on the backbenchers, surely. This is a safe seat...

It would be the first Tory hold in a by-election while in government since 1989. Actually holding it is more out of the ordinary.

If you look a bit further back it starts to look like it was the 1989-97 period which was out of the ordinary, and also the safe seats which were lost in by-elections in that period were generally lost to a certain party with a yellow bird logo which for some reason isn't doing very well at the moment.

[You kip if you want to...]

Imagine a crackpot like Helmer becoming UKIP's highest elected representative though.

Nigel will also look silly if they win, having decided not to stand.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And another poll, this time done for Lord Ashcroft: Con 42, UKIP 27, Labour 20, LDem 6

[Tetro Kornbluth]

And another poll, this time done for Lord Ashcroft: Con 42, UKIP 27, Labour 20, LDem 6

That's terrible news for Ed Milliband

[politicus]

And another poll, this time done for Lord Ashcroft: Con 42, UKIP 27, Labour 20, LDem 6

That's terrible news for Ed Milliband

Okay, so sarcasm it is. Couldn't really detect it regarding the Scottish Tories and devo max.

[You kip if you want to...]

Small note, on Thursday, UKIP will finally overtake the LibDems for number of votes cast in by-elections over the course of this parliament.

[EPG]

Gosh, the Lib Dems really annoy Labour people. One would almost think that Cameron invented the Lib Dems to distract them from the Tories.

[You kip if you want to...]

Gosh, the Lib Dems really annoy Labour people. One would almost think that Cameron invented the Lib Dems to distract them from the Tories.

Well, when they spend a generation attacking Labour as too right-wing, then put Cameron in number 10 in exchange for nothing more than some nice ministerial limos and then go onto break more promises than most people have had hot dinners, despite professing during the campaign that they "believe it's time for promises to be kept"... they'll annoy Labour people just a little bit, yeah.

[DL]

Wow - amazing how the Lib Dems in the UK sound exactly like the Liberal Party in Canada!! I guess the apple never falls far from the tree.

Gosh, the Lib Dems really annoy Labour people. One would almost think that Cameron invented the Lib Dems to distract them from the Tories.

Well, when they spend a generation attacking Labour as too right-wing, then put Cameron in number 10 in exchange for nothing more than some nice ministerial limos and then go onto break more promises than most people have had hot dinners, despite professing during the campaign that they "believe it's time for promises to be kept"... they'll annoy Labour people just a little bit, yeah.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Results at the last General Election:

Patrick Mercer (Con) 27,590 - 53.9%
Ian Campbell (Lab) 11,438 - 22.8%
Pauline Jenkins (LDem) 10,246 - 20.0%
Tom Irvine (UKIP) 1,954 - 3.8%

Majority 16,152 (31.5%)

Turnout was 71.4%

[Dr. Cynic]

Gosh, the Lib Dems really annoy Labour people. One would almost think that Cameron invented the Lib Dems to distract them from the Tories.

Well, when they spend a generation attacking Labour as too right-wing, then put Cameron in number 10 in exchange for nothing more than some nice ministerial limos and then go onto break more promises than most people have had hot dinners, despite professing during the campaign that they "believe it's time for promises to be kept"... they'll annoy Labour people just a little bit, yeah.

Nick Clegg is one of the "Orange Book" LibDems. Charles Kennedy wasn't. Nor was Paddy Ashdown before him. Clegg is probably the only LibDem leader in party history that would have gone in with the Tories. Hell, Kennedy openly said he wouldn't have and in 97, in the event of a hung parliament, Ashdown wanted to go into a coalition with Labour.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Now, turnout will be a lot lower in the by-election (obviously) and those that do vote will be much more tempted by smaller parties than in a General Election (obviously).

The Conservatives will presumably be trying to turn out at least half of their 2010 vote; it is hard to lose a by-election these days if you poll c.14k votes. Basically the seat is only vulnerable if they fail to do this. The circumstances of the poll, their less than spectacular candidate and the proximity to the Euro elections don't help, but we'll see.

UKIP polled slightly under two thousand votes in 2010; two thousand votes is terrible in a General Election, but counts for a lot more in a by-election if only as a kernel. Unless turnout is shockingly awful for a place like this, they probably need 10k at minimum to have a chance at winning.

[doktorb]

Gosh, the Lib Dems really annoy Labour people. One would almost think that Cameron invented the Lib Dems to distract them from the Tories.

Well, when they spend a generation attacking Labour as too right-wing, then put Cameron in number 10 in exchange for nothing more than some nice ministerial limos and then go onto break more promises than most people have had hot dinners, despite professing during the campaign that they "believe it's time for promises to be kept"... they'll annoy Labour people just a little bit, yeah.

Oh good heavens. Is that what you truly believe? Because it's utter tripe.

[You kip if you want to...]

Gosh, the Lib Dems really annoy Labour people. One would almost think that Cameron invented the Lib Dems to distract them from the Tories.

Well, when they spend a generation attacking Labour as too right-wing, then put Cameron in number 10 in exchange for nothing more than some nice ministerial limos and then go onto break more promises than most people have had hot dinners, despite professing during the campaign that they "believe it's time for promises to be kept"... they'll annoy Labour people just a little bit, yeah.

Oh good heavens. Is that what you truly believe? Because it's utter tripe.

Is it? Really, is it?

[Joe Republic]

Gosh, the Lib Dems really annoy Labour people. One would almost think that Cameron invented the Lib Dems to distract them from the Tories.

Well, when they spend a generation attacking Labour as too right-wing, then put Cameron in number 10 in exchange for nothing more than some nice ministerial limos and then go onto break more promises than most people have had hot dinners, despite professing during the campaign that they "believe it's time for promises to be kept"... they'll annoy Labour people just a little bit, yeah.

Oh good heavens. Is that what you truly believe? Because it's utter tripe.

It was a pretty accurate description of events.  And I say that as one of the many people who (would have) enthusiastically supported the Lib Dems in 2010, and is now ready to watch them crumble next year.

[Phony Moderate]

Difficult to think of any politician who fell from grace as quickly as Clegg. Churchillian approval ratings during the campaign, then just about the most unpopular centre party leader on record by the end of that year. Lulz. A similar thing happened to Blair, but it took more like a decade.

[EPG]

He ran on tax cuts and coalition with the most-voted party, so it should have been as clear as crystal that the most likely coalition was with the Tories, regardless of whatever Charles Kennedy said seven years and three leaders before him. As for the big promises of tax cuts, education spending and constitutional reform, they won the first, caved spectacularly on the second and Labour helped the Tories to block the third. Unless Miliband will radically reduce university tuition fees, some of the complaints from Labour should be read opportunistically. The Lib Dem promise-breaking record and polling outcomes are about as good/bad as your typical European small coalition party, though the British electoral system magnifies such low poll figures.

[You kip if you want to...]

He ran on tax cuts and coalition with the most-voted party, so it should have been as clear as crystal that the most likely coalition was with the Tories, regardless of whatever Charles Kennedy said seven years and three leaders before him. As for the big promises of tax cuts, education spending and constitutional reform, they won the first, caved spectacularly on the second and Labour helped the Tories to block the third. Unless Miliband will radically reduce university tuition fees, some of the complaints from Labour should be read opportunistically. The Lib Dem promise-breaking record and polling outcomes are about as good/bad as your typical European small coalition party, though the British electoral system magnifies such low poll figures.

They ran on the promise to talk to the biggest party first, fair enough, but the party had still spent 20 years lambasting Labour as too right-wing and presenting themselves as the 'true' left only to use this support to put Cameron in Number 10 and to keep him there. Minority government was an option and would've been more pleasing to all sides. The hope many had at first was that they'd be a brake on any excessive Tory measures, but, if anything, they've been the accelerator, offering Cameron support on any issue for which it was needed.

Tax "cuts" - They put up VAT despite warning of a "Tory VAT bombshell" and they cut the 50p rate, breaking their promise of "fairer taxes".

Constitution - It was a weak offer on Lords reform anyway which most Libs didn't even like. They also "won" a referendum in the coalition agreement on a voting system that nobody wanted and wouldn't have solved the problems that they themselves wanted addressing.

And Labour has promised a reduction in tuition fees. The LibDem increase didn't achieve what it aimed for and has given a poor, regressive deal to students - a price which is 3x higher than before, for poorer quality and to see swathes of degree programmes shut down. It will also cost the tax payer more through the loss of unpaid loans.

They've spent their time in government, for the most part, running away from their own record to no avail, because there's no point in trying to fool themselves or the public into thinking that they've honoured the faith that over 6 million people entrusted them with at the last election. They're not at 7% in the polls for no reason.

[doktorb]

Gosh, the Lib Dems really annoy Labour people. One would almost think that Cameron invented the Lib Dems to distract them from the Tories.

Well, when they spend a generation attacking Labour as too right-wing, then put Cameron in number 10 in exchange for nothing more than some nice ministerial limos and then go onto break more promises than most people have had hot dinners, despite professing during the campaign that they "believe it's time for promises to be kept"... they'll annoy Labour people just a little bit, yeah.

Oh good heavens. Is that what you truly believe? Because it's utter tripe.

Is it? Really, is it?

Yes. I find it remarkable that people still can't grasp what coalition government means, or how elections work. That people are getting into emotional fits over a political party agreeing to work with another suggests that more voters than I feared don't listen to what's said before polling day.

Having put many manifesto promises into law, I'm more than happy at the record of LibDems in government. Prissy petulance about TEH EVUL TOREEEZ is laughable claptrap.

[Meeker]

There are many threads available to discuss the merits of the Cameron ministry and Nick Clegg, but only one to discuss the Newark by-election. Shoo!

[Phony Moderate]

There are many reasons aside from the Coalition to loathe the Lib Dems - Bermondsey, David Ward, Mike Hancock, Cyril Smith, Lord Rennard, ousting a leader due to his alcoholism... Frankly, I wouldn't dislike a Tory majority government anymore than any government in which the Lib Dems are a part.

[YL]

There are many threads available to discuss the merits of the Cameron ministry and Nick Clegg, but only one to discuss the Newark by-election. Shoo!

Let's discuss it then...

In spite of the Survation poll showing Labour only just behind UKIP, it seems to have been perceived as a blue/purple battle.  There are some suggestions that some Labour supporters may even be voting tactically, though I doubt there can be that many (and not all of them in the same direction...).  I expect a Tory hold.

There's a hospital independent (Paul Baggaley, a Newark town councillor) standing; if anyone other than the Lib Dems comes fourth I'd think he's the most likely.

[YL]

Apparently there's a poll carried out by Loughborough University students showing UKIP narrowly ahead.  Without further details I'd take this with a bigger pinch of salt needed than usual, but we'll see.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If I were a UKIP member, I wouldn't want to win this election. True, I'd want Cameron to sweat; but only to the extent of the blue team winning by a whisker. Because, if UKIP do win attention will be pulled from cuddly telegenic Farage and drawn to the fruitcake. UKIP is a vehicle for Farage's charisma - can that be channelled through a somewhat unreliable proxy? Doubtful.

[DC Al Fine]

If I were a UKIP member, I wouldn't want to win this election. True, I'd want Cameron to sweat; but only to the extent of the blue team winning by a whisker. Because, if UKIP do win attention will be pulled from cuddly telegenic Farage and drawn to the fruitcake. UKIP is a vehicle for Farage's charisma - can that be channelled through a somewhat unreliable proxy? Doubtful.

I think it depends. Reform won a by-election before their breakthrough, and it probably helped them. If UKIP could elect a personable person without any peculiar views, it would be good for their GE prospects. In Reform's case, it gave them four years to hammer the Tories on Quebec/the constitution. A good UKIPer in Westminister would be able to do the same to the British Tories with Europe.