Forum Topic

Conservatives win Newark By Election convincingly

Here are the results in full:Robert Jenrick (Con) 17,431 (45.03%)Roger Helmer (UKIP) 10,028 (25.91%)Michael Payne (Lab) 6,842 (17.68%, -4.65%)Paul Baggaley (Ind) 1,891 (4.89%)David Kirwan (Green) 1,057 (2.73%)David Watts (LD) 1,004 (2.59%, -17.41%)Nick The Flying Brick (Loony) 168 (0.43%)Andy Hayes (Ind) 117 (0.30%)David Bishop (BP Elvis) 87 (0.22%)Dick Rodgers (Stop Banks) 64 (0.17%)Lee Woods (Pat Soc) 18 (0.05%)Con majority 7,403 (19.13%)Electorate 73,486; Turnout 38,707 (52.67%)Labour came third and its share of the vote went down by 4.65%. That is not a very good performance by the party that hopes to win next year's General Election.The Lib Dems came sixth after the Conservatives, UKIP, Labour, an Independent and the Greens and lost their deposit.

David Giles ● 4081d17 Comments

Yep, seems David only likes the free market when it's a private company that gets the contract. Not quite a free market.

Neil Chippendale ● 4077d

"The market should be the best regulator...However the incompetent Blair-Brown Labour Government made a mess of this by allowing too many of our energy companies to be taken over by foreign companies, many of them state owned."I don't wish to take sides in an internecine spat between supporters of what George Galloway eloquently (and imho accurately) described as "two cheeks of the same a*se", but wasn't that a direct consequence of the market being the regulator?

Phil Andrews ● 4077d

Thanks to the privatisation of the energy industry, there is now competition between energy suppliers and consumers do have choice.The market should be the best regulator.However the incompetent Blair-Brown Labour Government made a mess of this by allowing too many of our energy companies to be taken over by foreign companies, many of them state owned.The Secretary of State for Energy who presided over this from 2008 to 2010 was Ed Miliband.

David Giles ● 4077d

Maybe not - but I think it is futile in the extreme to expect business to do anything that helps the customer unless they are made to do it through legislation.

Vanessa Smith ● 4077d

Guy, I loved the Horlicks reference.Vanessa, I recognise the naivety in believing energy companies. But, in all honesty, it would be in their best interests to voluntarily do it than risk legislation. Once government legislates, it becomes all too easy to legislate on other matters that impinge their business. So, I think they will follow through. And if energy companies do follow through, the Labour PR machine should capitalise and say that it was the Labour threat to legislate which forced their hand (a threat which the coalition was too afraid to make). See! I'm not all one-sided on this, am I?  :)

Fadi Farhat ● 4078d

"The best which Labour has given us in 4 years is an ill-formulated policy to legislate against energy companies. Two companies have already nullified that policy by voluntarily promising a freeze."What? And you believe them - I'd like to see any of these 'voluntary' agreements or 'codes of conduct' that have ever been effective in anything. You are either very naïve or mad.

Vanessa Smith ● 4078d

Are you modelling yourself on David Giles Fadi?It's not worth trying to demolish your 'argument' because it is Horlicks from start to finish.

Guy Lambert ● 4078d

Whilst Labour leads the national polls, it does so by being just 2-3% better off than it was in 2010 which was Labour's worst performance in a General Election...ever. 2% better off after more than 4 years in opposition. Why is that? The answer is simple. Four years in opposition and the Labour Party has a leader who is the antonym of charisma with virtually no policies. I have never known the Labour Party to be so policy light. On the economy, the lack of ideas (other than criticising the Tories for taking longer than promised to oversee the recovery whilst admitting that we are in full recovery mode) is almost risible. The best which Labour has given us in 4 years is an ill-formulated policy to legislate against energy companies. Two companies have already nullified that policy by voluntarily promising a freeze. The other flagship policy coming from the boys in red is adding another layer of red tape on teachers (traditionally Labour supporters) to undergo a registration process. More bureaucracy from the machine which introduced Home Information Packs (HIPs). Even in the north of England (the traditional Labour heartlands), there are more Conservative councillors than Labour councillors (according to Eric Pickles). It's just they are spread out in a way which does not translate into having any control over councils. The fact that the Conservatives are still in the race is an indictment on Labour and its lethargy at a policy level across 4 years.

Fadi Farhat ● 4078d

Actually the turnout in Newark wasn't too bad - 53% which is good for a by-election.Cf the London Mayor election where the turnout was only 38% despite the election being incredibly tight.There were 40k spoiled papers - though I suspect quite a few of these were from people not understanding the system rather than deliberately spoiling - which beat only the BNP candidate. I'm not sure whether it's particularly valid to vote for 'none of the above' when there are 7 candidates including two apparently serious independents.For us, living in a marginal constituency and a council which can occasionally switch sides, there's a decent incentive to vote. If you live in Manchester (90 Lab councillors, no others) or much of the SE outside London it must be pretty difficult to drum up enthusiasm to vote. At least PR means your vote counts for something, though it doesn't make people flock to Euro elections.Making voting compulsory is all very well but I suspect impossible to enforce. At present there are said to be 6M voters who aren't even registered and this is pretty certain to rise when they bring in individual registration. I doubt there would be much enthusiasm for creating a bureaucracy to a) enforce registration and b) follow up non voters.

Guy Lambert ● 4080d

"There are strong rumours that Lab and LD voters voted Con to keep the awful ex-Tory Roger Helmer of UKIP out (though no polling evidence)"Comes to something when you've got to do something like that. I give any Tories or LibDems for that matter - out there - be careful, be very careful if you knock on our door in the next year. It will be a fight to see who gets to the front door first to tell them exactly what we think of them in good old fashioned language. You have been warned!

Vanessa Smith ● 4080d

Most worrying is the very low turnout even with the saturation of 'top' politicians.For a high ranking tory to claim it is a 'convincing win' is either a load of baloney or naive.It was a really safe seat but now in the realms of not so safe.There needs to be serious reform of the UK voting system. Not the over complex proposals of PR and other nonsense.It needs to be simple and clear.1. Don't vote - get fined. Far too many people gave their lives to ensure we can have a vote as individuals2. A 'None of the Above' box to tick  To allow those who do not approve of any of the candidates up for election.That eliminates the constant bleating of apathy but provides a clear signal to candidates that voters may not approve of them rather than those who simply spoil a ballot paper and get written off as irrelevant.In one of the Mayoral elections the rate of spoilt papers was so high it registered a higher percentage than some candidates.If over 50% or a mojority tick none of the above then there is no mandate for  any candidate. So it may mean another election with fresh candidate or clearer  amended policies.That I suspect is a bridge to far for political parties, but if the wake up call is not loud enough then the door is open for UKIP.

Raymond Havelock ● 4080d

Get a grip David. The boundaries have been changed in a way that helps the Tories no end. As I said, this is the 44th safest Tory seat and they were *seriously* worried about losing it to the extent of giving a 3 line whip to all MPs to attend the campaign and no less than 4 visits from DC and at least one from BoJO (though whether that helped is another matter!)There are strong rumours that Lab and LD voters voted Con to keep the awful ex-Tory Roger Helmer of UKIP out (though no polling evidence)

Guy Lambert ● 4080d

If there is a cosy relationship between developers in Ealing and Hounslow and Councillors, then it is between the developers and the Labour Party. It is the Labour Councillors who have been responsible for giving the developers planning permission.Newark had a Labour MP from 1950 to 1979 and again from 1997 to 2001 so if Labour were doing well, then it should have done better in the by-election.

David Giles ● 4080d

They couldn't win a tombola in Hounslow, or Ealing (where they should have easily won and Hammersmith.Now why is that?  It certainly wasn't UKIP.Not being prepared to end the cosy relationship with developers £££££s and unsuitable developments in the areas. Perhaps?

Raymond Havelock ● 4081d

If you follow the national polls the Lab lead, which wobbled down to a percent or two just after the budget, has returned to about 4/5%. Tories will be relieved about not losing their 44th safest seat but only nincompoops will crow about it :-)

Guy Lambert ● 4081d

David forgot to mention that the Tories vote fell 8.9%

Neil Chippendale ● 4081d

There are times when I wonder how much of a plonker someone can be. Coming hard on the heels of the Euro and local elections and being a relatively safe Tory seat - the Tories were always going to win. People who are p*ssed off with the Tories were never going to vote Labour they would go right towards UKIP, so that doesn't actually tell you anything at all about the outcome of the General Election.

Vanessa Smith ● 4081d