Nadine Dorries is out of “I’m a Celebrity…” and to celebrate Lord Ashcroft has released a poll of her Mid-Bedfordshire constituency. Topline voting intentions in the constituency are CON 51%(-2), LAB 22%(+7), LDEM 14%(-11), UKIP 8%(+3), GRN 4%(+1) – changes are from the general result in 2010.

Opinions of Dorries in her own constituency are not particularly flattering. Asked to rate whether they have a positive or negative view of various politicians on a scale of 0-10, she averages at 2.8, well below Boris Johnson (6.1), David Cameron (5.4), Nick Clegg (4.0), Ed Miliband (4.0) and Nigel Farage (3.5). Only 8% of people in Mid-Bedfordshire rated her above 8/10 on a positively scale.

58% of people disapproved of her decision to go on “I’m a Celebrity…” compared to only 16% who approved. 57% disagreed that she’d be able to get more publicity for the issues she cared about on the show rather than at Westminster, 54% disagreed that donating her MPs salary to charity made up for her absence. On whether or not she was a good MP people were evenly split 35% thought she was, 35% thought she wasn’t. Finally, 58% of people thought the Conservative party were right to suspend her, compared to 26% who thought it was wrong (17% said it should have been left to the local party to decide). Conservative voters were even more hostile – 64% thought it was right to suspend her.

44% of people said they were less likely to vote for her because of her appearance on “I’m a Celebrity…”, only 8% were more likely. Readers will know my reservations over questions like this – lots of the people saying less likely are Labour and Lib Dem voters anyway, so they are hardly lost votes. I’d even take the 44% of Tory voters who said less likely with quite a big pinch of salt, as in the event that Nadine Dorries somehow ends up standing as a Conservative candidate again lots will end up voting on national issues. Those concerns aside, it does suggest that the MP’s decision has gone down very badly in her constituency.

In other news, today’s YouGov daily poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 41%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 10%. That 10% for UKIP is right at the top end of the level of support YouGov have been showing them at and is worth keeping an eye on. At the tail end of last year we also saw an increase in UKIP support when the European summit rose up the media agenda.


481 Responses to “Nadine out of the jungle”

1 8 9 10
  1. @ Colin

    Why don’t we wait & see what the councillors & social service officers of Rotherham have to say for themselves.
    ——————–
    So you no longer believe they’ll say: “Vote Labour or we’ll take away your children?!” ;-)

  2. AMBER

    Of course not.

    It was in jest..

  3. Steve did you not ever feel a connection or a bond with them after looking after them for months? Were you not sometimes sad when they left? Or are you part of the caricature that’s being portrayed and was only in it for the money?
    -we felt and still do feel great affection for these children and provided a stable and loving environment ,however, they were someone else children!
    The rest of your comment is just gratuitously insulting.

    In order to carry on fostering and provide an on call appropriate adult I lost far more income than the local authority allowed for their care.

  4. I think people on here know I am a strong Labour supporter and support Ed Miliband too.

    But if he strongly believes that children of EU immigrants should be fostered in anti-EU households and tries to play politics with the lives of children,I`ll never vote for him.

  5. I honesty can’t believe the decision of Rotherham Concil. Its the absolute worst of the Liberal Left.

    Using the politicial persuasion of somebody (especially a mainstream party!), as a basis for whether you are a suitable parent for children is an absolute disgrace.

    This simply has to end in a resignation.

  6. @ Steve

    I agree with you; in my earlier comment I said that the payment for fostering is not commeasurate with the 24/7 committment which foster carers provide. I think that people are well out of order implying that it is lucrative; it most certainly isn’t!
    8-)

  7. @ Rich O

    Using the politicial persuasion of somebody (especially a mainstream party!), as a basis for whether you are a suitable parent for children is an absolute disgrace.
    ——————
    Which part of: Foster carers are not parents have you failed to understand?
    8-)

  8. @ Smukesh

    I’m afraid EM has to account for the “average” voter, kept deliberately in medieval darkness – the LP won’t forget that it seems they lost many votes because of the immigration issue. And immigration issues translate to nationalism in most parts of the UK and that again to plain racism whatever I read in these pages today.

    Because of my job, in spite.of my accent people forget that they talk to an “immigrant” so they tell me what they think of them (immigrants)… I have to add that you never get it from genuine left who wouldn’t be qble to.reconcile it with the rest of their ideologies or Conservative uppers who think it’s good to have some of these foreigners around.

  9. Colin – look at the Policy Exchange report MitM linked to earlier, class figures at least are in there

  10. Terrible. I wanted to say that I very rarely experienced such an amount of blatant partizanship and prejudices on this site as in the last 28 hours and we should get out of it and then saw Smukesh’s interesting point and there I was going into it…

  11. AMBER STAR
    @ Rich O
    Using the politicial persuasion of somebody (especially a mainstream party!), as a basis for whether you are a suitable parent for children is an absolute disgrace.
    ——————
    Which part of: Foster carers are not parents have you failed to understand?

    It doesn’t change my point one little bit. Fostering is looking after children, yes its not parenting, but the point is the same. Politicising childrens care is a disgrace. I know a very good couple who foster, and two couples who adopt, and their political persuasion is of no interest to me, and neither should it be.

  12. Anthony

    Time for a new thread to cool things down?

    You must have a polling observation or two up your sleeve.

  13. I notice that Gove is indeed rowing back on his earlier statement about the decision being “indefensible”, he is now suggesting that there may need to be a change to the guidelines/statutary regulations regarding fostering. He is quite clear that it is an ideological conflict (PM Radio 4). Given Cameron’s speech against multiculturalism last year, this could have far reaching consequences.

  14. @Laszlo

    “I wanted to say that I very rarely experienced such an amount of blatant partizanship and prejudices on this site as in the last 28 hours and we should get out of it ”

    @Oldnat

    “Time for a new thread to cool things down?”

    Popping up and reading from most recent back. I think I’ll stop there. Eagerly awaiting the next poll.

  15. @ Smukesh

    But if he strongly believes that children of EU immigrants should be fostered in anti-EU households and tries to play politics with the lives of children,I`ll never vote for him.
    ————————-
    Ed spoke in general terms: What matters is the future of children. Membership of a political party should not be a bar to fostering or adopting children.

    He didn’t say it about this specific case; he said that this case needs to be examined in detail to find out exactly what happened & why.
    8-)

  16. @LASZLO

    One would hope for better things from the Labour leader than cater to the lowest common denominator.

  17. @ Billy Bob

    I notice that Gove is indeed rowing back on his earlier statement about the decision being “indefensible”…
    —————–
    Yes, as I said to Colin, Farange & Gove waded in before they had the facts. Ed M has made a more careful & considered statement about it, IMO.
    8-)

  18. A conversation about why it is OK for politicians from the party I support to say something but when politicians from parties I don’t support say it, it’s completely indefensible is exactly the sort of silly party-partisan, party-line trotting that I don’t want here.

    It’s not a place to play make believe party rebuttal unit, leave it out.

  19. thank goodness all the main party political leaders have now strongly condemned this. I was genuinely starting to despair at the country we live in.

  20. At oldnat’s request, there’s a nice new thread.

  21. @ Rich O

    It doesn’t change my point one little bit. Fostering is looking after children, yes its not parenting, but the point is the same. Politicising childrens care is a disgrace.
    —————————
    No, it isn’t a ‘disgrace’. It is appropriate in a multi-ethnic, multi-faith, democratic country where the state make decisions regarding the welfare of children for politicians to openly discuss this issue.

    It would be nice if they (& we) could refrain from ill-informed, knee-jerk outrage.
    8-)

  22. ANTHONY

    Thanks-will do.

  23. I totally disagree with you on this Amber, sorry, but agree a new thread is probably appropriate. It’s one of the first political stories this year that has actually upset me when I think about the children, but hey, agree it might be best leaving it.

  24. AMBER

    @”It would be nice if they (& we) could refrain from ill-informed, knee-jerk outrage.”

    We certainly need some facts.

    Have just heard Farage claim that Rotherham BC have put these poor people on a list to foster “white children only” !!

    That cannot be correct!-if it was , I would think they are getting close to breaking some law or other.

    Roll on Monday & some facts -hopefully

  25. RICHO

    Agree with you about the children.

    What reason were they given for heaven’s sake?

  26. ok, got to say, but just also read that same statement from Farage, and if thats true, it’s actually getting even worse. Am going to watch TV for a few hours!

  27. @ Colin

    Have just heard Farage claim that Rotherham BC have put these poor people on a list to foster “white children only” !!
    ————–
    Lots of European children are white but from a ‘different’ culture, so I’d think there’s more to this than meets the eye.

    As Peter Cairns & I have said, it could be that all the facts will never be made public because confidentiality must be respected.

    I am not sympathising with anybody at this stage (I take it ‘poor people’ is the sympathethic use of the term not financial).
    8-)

  28. Sorry, Anthony. The earlier comment was meant by way of apology; reading it back, it didn’t come out as intended!!!

  29. @ Anthony

    “Policies have hardly any baring at all on voting behaviour – …..”

    True, except when it is a real game-changing whammy of an announcement that will directly affect real people.

    An historical example I remember is when Margaret Thatcher announced new policy of selling council houses to tenants at discount prices as Tory policy. That suddenly ate into previous bedrock Labour support who shifted Tory for a almost a generation.

    Perhaps an unequivocal announcement by Miliband that Labour would hold an EU in/out referendum in the first three months of an incoming Labour govt. would have in my view a similar impact in the opposite direction?

  30. I’ve got a little bet at 12/1 that UKIP will win Rotherham. :-)

  31. TONY DEAN
    “Perhaps an unequivocal announcement by Miliband that Labour would hold an EU in/out referendum in the first three months of an incoming Labour govt. would have in my view a similar impact in the opposite direction?”
    Congratulations on posing a genuinely political issue for the end-game of this fractious thread.
    But – apart from the fact that this does not seem a likely Ed-move and would anyway seem spurious, any referendum on the EU will be meaningless unless it followed a genuine Government-led review of the policies and achievements of the EU and on the performance oif the EC directed to informing the electorate both about the facts and about the Government’s – not the party’s – position – long IMO overdue.

1 8 9 10