By definition, a seat which is the 44th safest for the Tories and which has only been won by Labour once since Thatcher (on very different boundaries) isn't filled with 'the real swing voters'! Nottinghamshire isn't wealthy, but demographically Newark isn't especially representative of the county as a whole.

Quite a few people voted Tory to keep UKIP out though didn't they? Interesting to see if that trend will continue at the General Election.

After all that hype from the Euros this provides some reassurance that they are still absolutely miles off a MP seat despite having the sheer amount of publicity they have over the past couple of months.

Quite a few people voted Tory to keep UKIP out though didn't they? Interesting to see if that trend will continue at the General Election.

I'm not so sure that they would have done, there is a really strong Tory element to Newark. I would never have expected any other outcome here, the people who may oppose them unfortunately make up a hefty proportion of the non voters. Apparently the polling station in the heart of one of the old council estates was virtually empty.

 

Tirren is correct that Newark really doesn't typify Nottinghamshire as a whole.

 

So do you live in Nottinghamshire then Dandy?

I actually live in Newark, hence why I am unusually well informed on this one!

 

(also why I was so pleased Tirren didn't think we were typical of the wider Notts!)

Edited June 6, 201411 yr by مدهش*

I actually live in Newark, hence why I am unusually well informed on this one!

 

(also why I was so pleased Tirren didn't think we were typical of the wider Notts!)

I'm in Lincoln these days. D*&Os in a country tavern soon babes? *.*

Biggest news really was the Lib Dems finishing in 6th and losing their deposit - it is going to be a very bad night for them in May 2015.

How many seats do we reckon they'll have in 2015?

In seats they didn't win it'll be dreadful for them - there's no reason to vote for them. In seats they're holding onto I think they'll do better than people expect, as they're really good at building up local profiles. 30-40 seats, which isn't so bad given they've only had that many since 1997 anyway. There'll be a few big losses (I reckon Simon Hughes will finally cark it, which will be sweet justice after all this time) but if it is a hung parliament I think they'll have enough seats to still be influential.

 

 

In seats they didn't win it'll be dreadful for them - there's no reason to vote for them. In seats they're holding onto I think they'll do better than people expect, as they're really good at building up local profiles. 30-40 seats, which isn't so bad given they've only had that many since 1997 anyway. There'll be a few big losses (I reckon Simon Hughes will finally cark it, which will be sweet justice after all this time) but if it is a hung parliament I think they'll have enough seats to still be influential.

 

In the local elections, it was actually the opposite, on average they fell a bit more heavily in places where they had MPs than elsewhere. Which, despite the bullshit Lib Dem spin is only logical: they've fallen by 15% nationally since 2010, but in a lot of seats they don't even have 15% to start with so naturally that would mean there would have to be bigger falls in places where they're stronger.

Edited June 6, 201411 yr by Danny

True, but the cachet of a councillor endorsed by a 'local champion' MP is always smaller than the cachet of that local champion themselves, especially when the big identifying characteristic of that councillor is that they're a Lib Dem. You can see it in polling - I don't have any examples to hand, but it's a big trend that naming the MP in marginal polling for Lib Dem seats boosts the Lib Dem score massively.