Tomorrow’s Sun has a Survation poll of Newark, ahead of the by-election next week. Topline figures with changes since the general election are CON 36%(-18), LAB 27%(+5), LD 5%(-15), UKIP 28%(+24). This is the first poll we’ve had of Newark, and unless Lord Ashcroft also has one in the works it’s probably the only one.

A swing of 21 points from the Conservatives to UKIP would be a storming great swing, but the fact remains that Patrick Mercer had a pretty hefty majority at the last election, so even a swing of that size leaves the Conservatives 8 points ahead. Still a week to go though…


390 Responses to “Survation poll of Newark by-election”

1 3 4 5 6 7 8
  1. I realise that I said that I’d disappear but I have some EU election numbers (which allows me to post data and avoid partisan chitchat) –

    I was sick of the narrative of ‘It’s ze London vs the Rest of The Nation!’, so I thought I’d crunch numbers by local authority type.

    I have only done the West Midlands (my home region) so bear with me –

    West Midlands –
    District Councils (520,189 votes)
    UKIP 173,648 (33%)
    Con 153,987 (30%)
    Lab 101,713 (20%)
    Lib 28,390 (5%)
    Green 27,646 (5%)

    Metropolitan Councils (401,562 votes)
    UKIP 128,508 (32%)
    Lab 128,004 (32%)
    Con 79,718 (20%)
    Green 17,697 (4%)
    Lib 13,815 (3%)

    Unitary Authorities (211,729 votes)
    UKIP 73,791 (35%)
    Con 57,436 (19%)
    Lab 39,576 (19%)
    Lib 13,590 (6%)
    Green 13,368 (6%)

    Labour did best in Sandwell –
    Lab 44, Con 12, UKIP 30, Green 3, Lib 2

    UKIP did best in South Staffordshire –
    Lab 33, Con 33, UKIP 41, Green 3, Lib 3

    Con and Lib did best in Stratford On Avon –
    Lab 11, Con 38, UKIP 29, Green 6, Lib 11

    Greens did best in Malvern Hills –
    Lab 10, Con 34, UKIP 31, Green 9, Lib 10

  2. Rosieanddaisie
    “By the way, I always thought the “usual suspects” were anybody but Rich and TOH: even Neil A is a bit too M.O.R. to be trusted with a proper understanding of how things really is”

    Quite right, I’m glad you understand how things really are..

  3. Local Authority Areas with City Status (372,366) –
    Lab 136,917 (37)
    UKIP 96,522 (26)
    Con 66,164 (18)
    Lib 24,686 (7)
    Green 19,751 (5)

    63% of these votes were cast in Birmingham.

  4. @ Mr Nameless

    “@ Howard – I know your remark wasn’t entirely serious but it hits upon an attitude I’ve long thought is damaging political engagement in this country.”

    You make some good points but surely in this case its FPTP that is also really damaging to political engagement.

    In Newark for example somebody is going to be elected who perhaps over 2/3 of the elecorate didnt want. The only way that 2/3 can do anything about stopping that is to vote “tactically”. Otherwise their huge volume of votes will in effect be worthless (in particular for the party that comes 3rd) and that has got to be disillusioning to voters and their engagement with politics. It is this which
    is what I think Howard is drawing attention to with his flippant remark.

    Further up the thread somebody made the point that opinion polling in constituencies have the potential to revolutionise our politics if they demonstrate the clear “tactical” position of each seat. This is something you had to guess about in the not so distant past (eg. in Portsmouth South where I live you had to sort of guess that it was contest between Con & LD and not Con & Lab) but now there is the chance that voters can absolutely use their votes with the maximum amount of knowledge available. Anyone seeking better voter engagement with politics should be in favour of that I would of thought.

    Of course all this “tactical” voting merely exposes just how iniquitous and stupid FPTP is which brings me back to me opening point.

    I should add that I do find it amusing* in an ironical way that Lab member on here would be rushing to expel Howard from the Lab party were he to implement his tactics in real life. Whilst its shows admirable party control I suspect thats possibly one reason why Howard might not become a Lab member.

    * And yes I am easily amused.

  5. BILLYBOB

    @”in every generation complained about leaders moving to the right/betraying them.”

    …and on every page of UKPR it seems sometimes.

    The LibDems wouldn’t turn left.
    Labour might not turn left enough.

    What a frustrated & constantly dissatisfied bunch they are.

    Why don’t they go & form a party they are not discontented with ?

    MRNAMELESS
    @12.10am

    What a refreshing & thoroughly decent post.

  6. It reafirms ones faith in human nature to see world leaders putting aside their domestic politics for a moment, in order to try and help poor Meriam Ibrahim & her child.

    There is room in this world for international action & outcry against Death sentences for Apostacy, & the Cultural & Religious brutalising of Women.

  7. Morning Colin, fully agree with both your last two posts. Nice morning so the allotments call. Have a good day all.

  8. “Will there be a defection to TUSC if Ed doesn’t prove to be left-wing enough in government?”

    Nah. TUSC are seen as a bunch of nutters. The Greens might do well if that happens.

  9. Red, red Ed
    Go to my head
    Make me forget that I
    Still need him so

    Red, red Ed
    It’s up to you
    All I can do, I’ve done
    But memories won’t go
    No, memories won’t go

    I’d have thought
    That with time
    Thoughts of Tone
    Would leave my head
    I was wrong
    And I find
    Just one thing makes me forget

    Red Red Ed

    (not as good as Alec’s

    Never a Frown
    With Gordon Brown)

  10. Correction!
    “Metropolitan Councils (401,562 votes)
    UKIP 128,508 (32%)
    Lab 128,004 (32%)
    Con 79,718 (20%)
    Green 17,697 (4%)
    Lib 13,815 (3%)”

    Should read –
    Metropolitan Councils (635,525)
    Lab 221,744 (35)
    UKIP 173,648 (33)
    Con 101,713 (20)
    Lib 28,390 (5)
    Green 27,646 (5)

    The original figures was Metropolitan without Birmingham. Doy.

  11. @MrNameless – The Green and TUSC manifestos are almost indistinguishable, except TUSC are a bit more right-wing on environmental matters. Another example of the gap between policy platforms and the perceptions of that man on the Newark omnibus.

  12. @Colin
    “There is room in this world for international action & outcry against Death sentences for Apostacy, & the Cultural & Religious brutalising of Women.”
    ————————–
    Well said indeed.

  13. Chris Green,

    I think it’s also a matter of conduct. The Greens take part in Lib Dem style community politics and are actually fairly effective at engaging with voters on the doorstep. TUSC seem to campaign largely through posters, street stalls and attendance at demos which is quite inefficient.

    Plus, no Green has ever called me a murderer for being a member of the Labour party.

  14. TOH

    Morning to you too-and a lovely one it is.

    Hedge trimming for me-then some hoverflies hopefully after all the rain.

  15. “then some hoverflies hopefully after all the rain.”

    Personally I’d go for bacon and eggs. The wings get stuck in your teeth.

  16. mandelson?
    His book is by far the most emotional of all those written about the last labour government. And the emotion surprisingly centres on G Brown portrayed as a flawed giant, rathher than T Blair to whom Mandelson does not seem to warm.
    George?
    Another surprise was George Galloway. I went to his theatre perfoormance on the referendum and came away with admiration. He showed all his usual gifts but within very much a resposible left-leaning persona, asking that he should be welcomedback to the labour Party. Might have been a surprise to the Respect comrades..

  17. @GRHINPORTS: “now there is the chance that voters can absolutely use their votes with the maximum amount of knowledge available.”

    It might be possible in a by-election but I can’t see it ever being achieved to any great extent simultaneously nationwide. It’s also wide open to abuse (like this: https://twitter.com/IanAustinMP/status/465509676877373440 ). It seems to me that the only acceptable way would be to build it into the system, i.e. by adopting AV.

  18. Telegraph front page — ComRes find 86% of people who voted UKIP in Euro election intending to support the party in the general election.

    -This may be true as presumably it is their most dedicated Anti Foreigner Fans

    But it does only represent around 8% of the electorate (about 11% on turnout at a GE ) which seems in the right ball park for a UKIP result

  19. @Colin

    Thank you so much for your good wishes for the future. I took your point about how my post that you took exception to was phrased, and later qualified it. I understood why you objected to it as it had been written. You have no need to apologise – on occasion I do write c*ap, as on other occasions even an old party colleague Howard has pointed out to me!
    Anyway, you are a gentleman for apologising if you thought you had given offence – which you did not. If I write c*ap in the future, tell me!

    Furthermore: you wrote: “There is room in this world for international action & outcry against Death sentences for Apostacy, & the Cultural & Religious brutalising of Women.”

    When it matters Colin, we are side-by-side on things that really matter, whatever our take on domestic politics – well said sir, well said!

  20. PostageIncluded & Others

    A senior member of our team was talking to the group to which you refer earlier this week and they have agreed to supply NI with a series of ‘opinion style’ contributions in the run up to the GE knocking Miliband and the lurch to the Left, and effectively a tacit endorsement of Cameron.

  21. Colin (from about 9.30 yesterday morning)

    You described being socially and economically liberal as centrist. No doubt that is because you put yourself (as well as Nick Clegg, Tony Blair and David Cameron in that category).
    It follows that you seem to think anyone remotely to the left of these three are “left wing”. That is clearly not the case.

    Centrism covers a lot of ground. The liberals (traditionally seen as centrists) were the party of social liberalism. They never could agree on being economic social democrats or liberals. Hence the split in 1923 with the National Liberals eventually ending up on the Tory benches.

    It is also generally accepted that economic liberalism is a right wing concept. European Free Democrats ally with Conservatives because they are more comfortable with the right than the left – which proves that economic liberalism (even coupled with social liberalism lite) is not centrist. Indeed the definition of a centre right party is a party of economic liberals.

    There are many who believe in a low debt, public/private balanced economy who are largely social liberals who would also (quite rightly) describe themselves as centrists – and are indeed the descendants of the 1906 Liberal Party. To describe National Liberals with a right of centre background like Clegg or Blair as centrists is really not consistent with the facts. And even if you do this, and argue it as ROC centrism, you cannot in all logic dismiss what you may see as left of centre centrism as ‘left wing’.

    In the end parties lose their constituencies not because the constituency is too left wing or too right wing, but because the party leaders have moved so far in one directuon tbat they have ceased to represent the views of their supporters. Arguing that the supporters are to blame and should just pick another brand where the supporters have no actually changed is illogical. It’s the equivalent of saying that if their are two options (a) change the leadership or (b) change the people, that option (b) is preferable as you like the leadership.

  22. Occasional Notes on Cycling No. 1

    The Daily T. is engaging in an orgy of non-hostile articles about cycling. The following was included in today’s second internet headline.

    “A leading neurosurgeon has controversially claimed that cyclists who wear helmets are wasting their time.
    He cited evidence from the University of Bath that suggests that wearing a helmet may even put cyclists at greater risk. The research showed that drivers get around 3 inches closer to cyclists who wear helmets because they perceive them as safer.”

    The CTC has never given unequivocal support to helmets, is opposed to legislation making them compulsory, & has produced ample evidence that the benefits of wearing helmets, high-viz jackets etc, are, in aggregate, outweighed by the fact that drivers are less careful [i.e. more aggressive] to those so kitted out

    See
    http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaign/cycle-helmets-evidence

  23. Mandelson, Stringer et al whinging EM is leaning too far to the left.

    Abbott, Watson et al whinging EM is leaning too far to the right.

    Strikes me that EM must have it about right.

    Labour voters know the right-wing press loathe them & EM because he refuses to kowtow to them – well done Ed I say.

  24. @ RAF
    “The liberals (traditionally seen as centrists) were the party of social liberalism. They never could agree on being economic social democrats or liberals. Hence the split in 1923 with the National Liberals eventually ending up on the Tory benches.”

    I agreed with most of your post about how party ideology is shaped — hellishly complex — , though surprised you take the views you oppose so seriously.
    However, in 1923 the Liberals did not split but made their last attempt to reunite. The Asquith & Lloyd George factions were (more-or-less) united in the 1923 election campaign & following the election agreed to oust the Tories & hence support the 1st minority Lab government.

  25. Great decision the Liberals then. Worked out superbly for them in the long run….

  26. mr pman

    “A senior member of our team was talking to the group to which you refer earlier this week and they have agreed to supply NI with a series of ‘opinion style’ contributions in the run up to the GE knocking Miliband and the lurch to the Left, and effectively a tacit endorsement of Cameron.”

    This is a turn up for the books and a bit of a shock.

    A “senior” member you say? Blimey !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  27. Bramley,

    Should the Tories get most seats in 2015 the right will say EM was too left wing while the left will say he failed to be left wing enough to bring back abstainers.

    Truth is that neither would be right imo as the electoral mountain is steep and neither direction will secure an OM for Labour – most sets maybe but Tories will probably out-poll them due to the 8%ish lead

  28. @ TingedFringe

    Do you have a link for European election results per parliamentary constituency (your stats indicate you do!)?

    Been searching for the results for my constituency for ages and can’t find them anywhere.

  29. @ Neil A
    Great decision the Liberals then. Worked out superbly for them in the long run…

    The Liberals were stuffed. To give you more details than you probably want . .
    The National Liberal leaders, save Lloyd George, had all been defeated in 1922 election which put the Tories safely in. A year later, Baldwin called the 1923 election on a Protectionist platform which boosted the aggregate Liberal vote & seats (tho the former National Liberals lost again, mainly to Labour.)
    The higher Lib vote damaged the Tories & put Lab in. In 1924 election, Baldwin renounced protection, the Lib vote & seats collapsed & the Tories were safely back in. The Libs were finished. Their USPs of Free Trade & Radicalism had been absorbed by the Tories & Lab respectively.

  30. @Billy Bob/0810:
    At present, I think the Greens are fulfilling this role to some extent. However, it is also possible (if substantially less likely) that this role slides to the LibDems after the 2015 elections (and Clegg’s almost inevitable removal).

    One thing to remember in all of this is that there was never an obviously viable party to the left of Labour that wasn’t tainted by an association with outright Communism and all the attendant baggage (as the CPGB was after the late 40s). You’ve had various breakaways, yes, and they occasionally mustered local support (witness Galloway and Respect), but rarely anything outside of a few councils or a stray constituency. On the other hand, had there been European elections with PR back in the 60s through the 80s, it is entirely possible that some force on the hard left might have actually emerged to challenge Labour over time.(1) On the other hand, it seems quite plausible that had the UK stuck with FPTP for the Euros, UKIP would never have become the force they have. At the very least, they would have had a tougher hill to climb to make a breakthrough.

    (1) I posit an earlier split being needed because when you look at the results, 1999 was a different from 1994…but it took until 2004 and 2009 for the “non-big three” parties to start grabbing 35-45% of the vote. You can give voters PR, but it may take an election or two for the effects to sort themselves out.

  31. Shevii

    Most council websites have the results for their ‘jurisdiction’ on their website for Euros.

  32. ROBBIE ALIVE.
    When I teach the 1922 GE, all the students ROFL at the mention of the leader of the Tory Party- ‘Unionist’. I had to ask at home about why his name is funny.

    You will know that Macdonald was recommended for Office by Baldwin. He represented Port Talbot/Aberavon then. Neil Kinnock’s son has been selected as PPC there for the May 7th GE, 2015.

  33. “The Tories are a little bit lucky that Labour will be pulling out all the stops to hold their vote. UKIP can’t win this unless the Labour vote falls back significantly from where it is now and Labour will do everything they can to ensure that does not happen.

    In fact I think Labour would prefer that the Conservatives rather than UKIP wins the seat.”
    Of course – hence why they’re suddenly putting up quite a fight, which wouldn’t be consistent with wanting UKIP to win.

  34. @GRHINPORTS

    Whilst its shows admirable party control I suspect thats possibly one reason why Howard might not become a Lab member.
    ———————–
    Notwithstanding that Howard’s remark was perhaps tongue in cheek, why would the Labour Party want a member who’d recommend that supporters vote for another Party that does not share Labour’s values?*.

    (*Based on UKIP’s previously published manifestos, although we are now told they’ve been ‘scrapped because they’re [email protected]’ & Nigel had never bothered to actually read them!).

  35. “Mandelson is said to have called it a ‘party of permanent majority’ which echoed Karl Rove’s ambitions for the Republicans.”

    Or the “party always in government”, which was what SLAB was supposed to be in Scotland.

  36. Despite my expectations, there’s no significant evidence of a post-election bounce for UKIP. I’m not sure I want to revise my prediction of the Tories losing more ground to the Kippers yet, though.

  37. Labour is facing a dilemma at the moment insofar as UKIP goes. The problem is that in the long run, inevitably the “other party” will win elections sooner or later, almost regardless of who that party is. Remember…between 1910 and 1997, you only had a stable non-Tory government twice (1945-50 and 1966-70). The remainder of the intervening 87 years consisted of unstable coalition/minority situations (1910-1922, 1929-31, 1950-51, 1964-66, 1974-79) or the somewhat more complex National Government/WW2 Coalition (1931-45, but only involving Labour from 1940-45). But inevitably the “other guy” won every-so-often, and eventually had Labour not reformed they would either have won or been displaced by a party that could win.

    So if by some freak circumstance UKIP were to upend the Tories on a permanent basis, UKIP would eventually gain government down the road. That is what Labour is having to face…letting UKIP in somehow might help them in the short run (though the logic of that is getting thin in a number of places), but in the long run the story is far, far different.

  38. In Newark at the moment. Tens of Tories milling about and a number of Labour teams, but outnumbered and outgunned by probably over a hundred UKIP activists with megaphones and a car replete with flags.

  39. RAF

    @”Centrism covers a lot of ground. ”

    Yes – suppose that is true. In politics the centre is where you want it to be would be my observation.

  40. UKIP still never won a seat. Never got more than 30% in an election.

    Unless they do a lot better than that no chance of them winning this seat.

    Survation absurdly UKIP-friendly at the best of times. Their Euros figures put UKIP 5% up and Cons 2% down.

    Safe Conservative hold.

  41. Elements of the ROC press bigging up typical UKIP issues and now being faced with trying to reign in a monster that exceeded their expectations tells us how risky wishing a party other than the one you support to do well actually can be.

    I am with I hope all other Lab party members in wanting to max our vote in Newark and whoever wins wins.

    Of course their is a financial aspect and resource prioritisation judgement to make and it seemed to me that our leadership did not wish to overspend on the Euro-Election.
    Any laying low in Newark would be due to this calculation not a desire to see a UKIP victory.

  42. This is probably the closest I’ve seen to a constituency breakdown for UKIP in the north west Euros. The Liverpool council site only links to the regional numbers.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/472716179216560128/photo/1

  43. TONY DEAN

    Thank you for your @ 10.31 am

    You did indeed qualify your remarks. I failed to acknowledge that , and do so now willingly.

    Your closing sentiment is true for many many ordinary people not steeped in party politics I feel. ie-the vast majority of people who don’t belong to a political party, don’t want to, but nevertheless hold opinions on the way the world works & should ideally be. How can one vote without such thoughts?

    Don’t get me wrong-I recognise that without committed people like you , willing to devote great chunks of their life to formulating policies for democratic governance , there would be no political parties to vote for.
    But the schisms & factions & isms leave me cold. I think the average voter is put off by them , and just formulates a general set of principles which they believe in , and then apply the most generalised tests to assess whether politican A B or C has similar principles.

    I think if politicians could be more honest , and pose more questions to voters, the ‘isms would fall away & the common values to which you allude would come to the for.
    Take “inequality” for example-flavour of the moment it would seem :-)
    When have we ever seen politicians set out their thoughts on the basic principles-
    What do we mean by inequality?
    Is absolute equality possible, or even desirable-and how do we measure equality & inequality?

    I think the average person would have a pretty good idea of their answers to these questions-& my guess is that there would a greater degree of agreement on those answers, than fundamental disagreement.

    If we could crystalise that core of agreement on a desirable outcome , we could spend more time on agreeing how to achieve it. And when you get down to it , it is the latter which political parties spend most of their time talking about-means rather than ends. What they want to do , rather than why they want to do it.

    ……….anyway-waffling now ,( and showing that I am but an ordinary voter , without the ready lexicon of political ideology ; which often makes me feel out of place in a UKPR populated by so many “activists” )……….so will shut up.

  44. I wasn’t at all surprised by Steel’s blind eye , but am really surprised at the equivocation from this quarter :-

    ” Baroness Williams told the Today programme that the peer had been “a very decent and loyal member of the party” who had done “huge amounts”, and suggested that the seriousness of his case had been over-stated.

    “If I may say so there are some comparisons which suggest that there are real serious issues about sexual harassment and so forth. And I don’t think he’s one of the most serious cases,” she added.”

    Politics Home.

    What on earth does she mean?

  45. @ Far Easterner- Wigan doesn’t!

    @ Stan J- No specific results on your link though was there?

    So I guess bump to my original question!

  46. Any discussion of “seriousness” is a huge elephant trap.

    Everyone knows in their hearts that any offence, however trivial or heinous, come in shades of seriousness.

    But anytime you try and characterise the relative seriousness of a specific allegation, you get strung up on the “Are you saying it doesn’t matter?” gallows.

    Some child abuse is more serious than other child abuse. Some murder is more serious than other murder. Some theft is more serious than other theft. And some sexual misconduct is more serious than other sexual misconduct. We all know that. That’s why the courts have discretionary sentencing powers and dish out longer sentences for some offences than for others.

    But don’t ever get caught saying something is “less serious”…

  47. @Gray

    That’s not actually true. At least, it does not automatically follow.

    If there’s an electable party, that is fatally wounded by an unelectable party, that does not make the unelectable party electable. What happens then is that both parties wither as they are unable to be taken seriously as potential parties of government.

    The disappearance of a major party in what had been a system dominated by two parties, is usually an apocalyptic event that disrupts everything in the political system such that no party remains as it was at the end of the day. And no one can predict what happens should the Conservatives actually be seen as rendered permanently unelectable to government.

    However, I do think that the Conservatives are only doomed if they actively persue the same ground as UKIP. There’s a quite clear path to them repositioning by absorbing the Orange Bookers that leaves them an electable party, and it’s only loud voices on the right fringe of Conservatives who dislike that enough to want to try to move the whole party further right.

  48. @Billy Bob

    No, they’ll just stop voting. The Blairite “Nowhere to go” mantra always ignores that turnout in the most Labour-friendly demographics is on a substantial downward trend, towards American levels – which their biggest inspiration – the Democrats have achieved.

    @TingedFringe

    AndyJS has already done most of the work for you:

    Mets:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dHR0LWkxX1E5d0Fqd0hDd0Vid0RHUkE#gid=0

    Districts:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFRlQ250bWgzS2JQZDRxcjVfa0lOdmc&usp=sheets_web#gid=0

    Unitaries:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dExDeE16eDhiSU1UUjl0ZlQ2NWhHMnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=0

    London:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFBKVmJGYkhwYTRFeGpVZlg2bTRIZUE#gid=0

  49. @Shevii

    Nah. Best I could find is the north west local authority results. Detailed but I’d like to see my constituency. So if anyone stumbles across Liverpool Riverside..

    http://www.northwestvotes.gov.uk/nwv/downloads/file/10/european_parliamentary_election_2014_north_west_result_-_la_breakdown

  50. Jayblanc,

    “There’s a quite clear path to them repositioning by absorbing the Orange Bookers that leaves them an electable party, and it’s only loud voices on the right fringe of Conservatives who dislike that enough to want to try to move the whole party further right.”

    Agreed, especially if Labour continue to move to the left (opening up more centre-ground) but aside from a brief moment in late 2005 the Conservatives have stuck fairly solidly to a “the public will get it sooner or later” approach since 1997. It took only one disaster for Labour to work out what it took eight years for the Tories to work out: governments don’t lose elections if oppositions don’t listen to the public.

1 3 4 5 6 7 8