Nigel Farage speaks during a campaign event at Kelham Hall in Newark. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Newark doesn't show that Ukip's bubble has burst

The party is still achieving record ratings in the national polls. 

It took little time for Labour and Tory supporters to gleefully declare that Ukip's bubble had burst after Lord Ashcroft published a poll showing the Tories 15 points ahead in the Newark by-election. If the party can't take seats off the government in mid-term, as the SDP did regularly in the 1980s, what kind of insurgency is it? 

But while Westminster's desire to see the Farageists fail is an understandable one, Newark doesn't show that they have. For a start, the party's rating of 27 per cent represents a swing of 17.5 per cent since 2010, not unimpressive in what is only the 248th most "Ukip friendly" seat. That second place in a by-election is now viewed as a failure only shows how successful it has been in the last year. Look beyond Newark, and the signs remain encouraging for the party. Ukip was on 19 per cent in Ashcroft's national poll and is on 17 per cent in today's YouGov poll, its joint-highest rating ever.

A fairer test of Ukip's ability to win Westminster seats would be a by-election in one of its top 50 targets. What is clear is that, barring an unlikely meltdown, the party will have a decisive effect on the general election result. In 2010, it won 3 per cent of the vote, enough to deprive the Tories of up to 20 seats (there were 20 constituencies in which the party's vote exceeded the Labour majority). Should Ukip poll more than twice that (as it almost certainly will), and continue to take votes disproportionately from the Conservatives, it could do what Tories fear most and deliver victory to Ed Miliband. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.