Conservatives hold Newark
The Conservatives held Newark in yesterday's by-election, which is the first time we have won a parliamentary by-election while in government for just over 25 years, since William Hague held Richmond in Februay 1989.
There was a swing against us, but a smaller swing than in previous by-elections in this parliament.
Of course this absolutely does not mean that the Conservatives can take victory for granted in next year's general election - it is still on a knife edge with everything to play for and no room whatsoever for complacency. And you should never read too much into a by-election. But this was a better result for the Conservatives than had been expected.
The fact that Labour and UKIP spokespeople like Chris Bryant and Roger Helmer were reduced to making an issue of the fact that the Conservatives made a huge push to hold Newark and a major effort to get lots of MPs, candidates and activists there - as if any competently-run party aspiring to run Britain could possibly have failed to do that - shows how desperate they both were to find some spin to explain what was basically a decent result for the Tories.
Conservative candidate Robert Jenrick was elected with 17,431 votes. UKIP came second with 10,028 - in some ways a very creditable performance for a party which was nowhere in this seat in 2010, but not the breakthrough they needed.
Labour dropped from second place to third with 6,842 and a fall of 4.6% of their share in the vote. The Lib/Dems came sixth.
Mike Smithson said at the Political Betting site that
"This should have been Labour’s to take."
He adds that
"This is only the third GB by-election this parliament that has not been a LAB defence and EdM’s party should have chucked everything at it. They didn’t and the huge CON campaign clearly convinced anti-UKIP voters that they were the party to stop the purples."
Mike also quotes from Professor John Curtice's comments before the result on the Spectator blog:-
“The truth is that they [Labour] should be on tenterhooks as to whether they will win the seat. That swing that they would need, it is less than the Labour Party achieved in Norwich, less than the Conservatives achieved in Norwich in the last Parliament, less than Labour achieved in Dudley West, Wirrel South just before they won the 1997 election. When oppositions look as though they are on course for government, the kind of swing that is required for Labour to win has been relatively common. To that extent, we have to ask ourselves, why is it we are not asking the question, could Labour win this? It is all of a piece, as a result of the recent elections, Labour do not have the enthusiasm and depth of support in the electorate that make them look like an alternative government.”
and adds
"He’s dead right."
There was a swing against us, but a smaller swing than in previous by-elections in this parliament.
Of course this absolutely does not mean that the Conservatives can take victory for granted in next year's general election - it is still on a knife edge with everything to play for and no room whatsoever for complacency. And you should never read too much into a by-election. But this was a better result for the Conservatives than had been expected.
The fact that Labour and UKIP spokespeople like Chris Bryant and Roger Helmer were reduced to making an issue of the fact that the Conservatives made a huge push to hold Newark and a major effort to get lots of MPs, candidates and activists there - as if any competently-run party aspiring to run Britain could possibly have failed to do that - shows how desperate they both were to find some spin to explain what was basically a decent result for the Tories.
Conservative candidate Robert Jenrick was elected with 17,431 votes. UKIP came second with 10,028 - in some ways a very creditable performance for a party which was nowhere in this seat in 2010, but not the breakthrough they needed.
Labour dropped from second place to third with 6,842 and a fall of 4.6% of their share in the vote. The Lib/Dems came sixth.
Mike Smithson said at the Political Betting site that
"This should have been Labour’s to take."
He adds that
"This is only the third GB by-election this parliament that has not been a LAB defence and EdM’s party should have chucked everything at it. They didn’t and the huge CON campaign clearly convinced anti-UKIP voters that they were the party to stop the purples."
Mike also quotes from Professor John Curtice's comments before the result on the Spectator blog:-
“The truth is that they [Labour] should be on tenterhooks as to whether they will win the seat. That swing that they would need, it is less than the Labour Party achieved in Norwich, less than the Conservatives achieved in Norwich in the last Parliament, less than Labour achieved in Dudley West, Wirrel South just before they won the 1997 election. When oppositions look as though they are on course for government, the kind of swing that is required for Labour to win has been relatively common. To that extent, we have to ask ourselves, why is it we are not asking the question, could Labour win this? It is all of a piece, as a result of the recent elections, Labour do not have the enthusiasm and depth of support in the electorate that make them look like an alternative government.”
and adds
"He’s dead right."
Comments