Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

LD performance (was The Top Ten Swings in UK General Elections: updated)

20 views
Skip to first unread message

David Stone

unread,
Jun 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/5/97
to

In Article <97060223...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> You [the Liberal Democrats] won so many seats because we did well.

Can this account for everything IYO?

Do they really have more MPs and Councillors since WW2 solely because
Labour is riding high?
--


David Boothroyd

unread,
Jun 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/7/97
to

The Lib Dems have more MPs because Labour did well in winning over
Conservative votes.

--
\/ David Boothroyd, psephologist, Libertarian socialist.De minimis non curat DB
British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
The House of Commons now: Lab 417, C 162, L Dem 46, UU 10, SNP 6, PC 4, SDLP 3,
SF 2, UDUP 2, Ind 1, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4, Vac 1 (Uxbridge). Gov't majority is 180

Greg Stone

unread,
Jun 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/9/97
to


>> Can this account for everything IYO?
>>
>> Do they really have more MPs and Councillors since WW2 solely because
>> Labour is riding high?
>
>The Lib Dems have more MPs because Labour did well in winning over
>Conservative votes.

I am also inclined to note that LD grassroots organisation is
traditionally very effective (substitute "dirty" if you prefer), and a
successful focus on key seats paid dividends. Whilst Labour in the
main also had a good campaign organisation at constituency level, the
Tory grassroots is increasingly withering away through local
government defeat, shrinking membership, and elderly nature of their
activists. This is a long-term trend which would appear difficult to
buck. Certainly in many cases (eg Shipley) complacent and aloof
"elderly " Tory campaigners allowed well-marshalled, professional, and
keen Labour (or LD) campaign teams to snatch victory.

>\/ David Boothroyd, psephologist, Libertarian socialist.De minimis non curat DB

Greg Stone
NJM European Economic & Management Consultants,
Quinns Buildings, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 5DW

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/9/97
to

Greg Stone (N...@NCLE.octacon.co.uk) wrote:
> >The Lib Dems have more MPs because Labour did well in winning over
> >Conservative votes.

> I am also inclined to note that LD grassroots organisation is
> traditionally very effective (substitute "dirty" if you prefer), and a
> successful focus on key seats paid dividends.

Please give examples or withdraw that accusation. Don't bother with Tower
Hamlets, Bermondsey or Cheltenham as they have already been discussed to the
death in this newsgroup, and many of the accusations made shown to be nothing
more than the usual throwing of mud by poor losers.

Matthew Huntbach

Stephen Goddard

unread,
Jun 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/10/97
to

On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, David Boothroyd wrote:

> The Lib Dems have more MPs because Labour did well in winning over
> Conservative votes.

In the following 17 seats, of which 6 are notional gains, the Lib Dem
majority was greater than the total Labour vote, regardless of whether
that vote increased or decreased relative to 1992: Bath, Cheltenham,
Cornwall North, Devon North, Harrogate, Hazel Grove, Hereford, Newbury,
Sheffield Hallam, Southport, Truro, Yeovil, Argyll and Bute, Fife North
East, Gordon, Orkney and Shetland, Roxburgh and Berwickshire and
Montgomeryshire. Labour's performance in these seats can have had no
effect whatsoever upon whater or not the Lib Dems won. Every Labour voter
could have voted Tory and the Lib Dems would still have won.

To take a few other examples:

Labour vote Lib Dem majority 1997
increase 1992-7

Taunton: 97 2443
Cornwall SE: 1822 6480
Richmond Park: 1961 2951
OxWAb: 2719 6285
Aberdeenshire W: 1037 2662

(I would include Edinburgh West and Brecon and Radnorshire, but there, as
in several other Lib Dem gains, Labour's absolute share of the vote fell
slightly)

In these seats, if the increase in the Labour vote came entirely from the
Tories, it wouldn't have mattered if it had all stayed with them: the Lib
Dems would still have won.

I'm sure exactly the same thing in reverse can be shown in the vast
majority of Labour gains. However, as I've said (several times), I'm not
arguing that Labour didn't do well. I'm arguing that where they needed
to, the Lib Dems actually did rather well, too and managed to do so on
their own, not because Labour won seats for them.

Steve.

*******************************************************************************
Sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt (Virgil)
===============================================================================
Roughly translated: life's a bitch
*******************************************************************************

John Fitch

unread,
Jun 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/11/97
to

In Bath at least many of the LibDem votes came from Labour supporters
in 1992. If they had reverted to their positive views rather than
stopping teh Tories one might have seen a very different result.
==John ff

nigel roberts

unread,
Jun 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/12/97
to

In article <x72069z...@omphalos.maths.bath.ac.uk>, jp...@maths.bath.ac.uk (John Fitch)
wrote:

> Article: 22865 of uk.politics.electoral
> Newsgroups: uk.politics.electoral
> Path:
>
betanews.compulink.co.uk!news.cix.co.uk!nildram!peernews.paralex.co.uk!paralex!zetnet.co.uk!di
sgorge.news.demon.net!de
>
mon!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!easynet-uk!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!strath-cs!dcl-cs!bath.ac.uk!nob
ody
> From: John Fitch <jp...@maths.bath.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: LD performance (was The Top Ten Swings in UK General Elections: updated)
> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
> Sender: nob...@omphalos.maths.bath.ac.uk (Not verified by RFC1413 or Kerberos)
> Organization: School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath
> Message-ID: <x72069z...@omphalos.maths.bath.ac.uk>
> References: <EBBDw...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>
> <97060700...@election.demon.co.uk>
> <Pine.OSF.3.95.970610...@sable.ox.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:45:36 GMT
> Lines: 4
> Xref: betanews.compulink.co.uk uk.politics.electoral:22865

That might of been true in 1992 but it wasn't in 1997. If all the labour supporters didn't
vote for Don Foster, he would have still won. The thing I heard most was that Don was a hard
working MP and deserved to win. Tactical labour supporters were not that common. Further proof
are the local elections Labour come a poor third, now only having 3 councillors out of 37.

Nigel Roberts

Victor of the last Bath council by-election. A lib Dem gain from Labour (Feb 1996).

Guy Barry

unread,
Jun 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/13/97
to

In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970610...@sable.ox.ac.uk>,

Stephen Goddard <sjoh...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, David Boothroyd wrote:
>
>> The Lib Dems have more MPs because Labour did well in winning over
>> Conservative votes.
>
>In the following 17 seats, of which 6 are notional gains, the Lib Dem
>majority was greater than the total Labour vote, regardless of whether
>that vote increased or decreased relative to 1992: Bath [...]

That's certainly true. But the Lib Dem vote share in Bath only
went up very slightly, and their numerical vote actually fell.
I think the same is broadly true for most of the other seats
held by the Lib Dems. The main gainers here in Bath were
undoubtedly the Labour Party.

Guy Barry (who voted for Don Foster!)

--

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jun 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/14/97
to

M. Murray wrote:
>
> Guy Barry (gba...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:

<snip>

> Martin Murray :: School of Chemistry, Bristol University, BS8 1TS, England
> A vote for a party coming third or lower is a wasted vote.

Thats a matter of opinion! I voted for a party that came fourth, and
that IMO, was not a wasted vote.

Gerry Lynch

Belfast City Council: SF 13 SDLP 7 A 6 UUP 13 DUP 7 PUP 3 UDP 3 IndU 1

Alliance Website
http://www.unite.net/customers/alliance

nigel roberts

unread,
Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97
to

In article <EBqJJ...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>,
gba...@spuddy.mew.co.uk (Guy Barry) wrote:

> Article: 23112 of uk.politics.electoral
> Newsgroups: uk.politics.electoral
> Path:
>
betanews.compulink.co.uk!news.cix.co.uk!btnet-feed2!btnet!ba
ron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!news-x
>
fer.cybernet.dk!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!bloom
-beacon.mit.edu!yama.mcc.ac.uk!warwick
> !spuddy!gbarry
> From: gba...@spuddy.mew.co.uk (Guy Barry)


> Subject: Re: LD performance (was The Top Ten Swings in UK
General Elections: updated)

> Message-ID: <EBqJJ...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>
> Organization: Spud's Public Usenet Domain
> References: <EBBDw...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>
<97060700...@election.demon.co.uk>
> > >
<Pine.OSF.3.95.970610...@sable.ox.ac.uk>
> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 22:23:46 GMT
> Lines: 23
> Xref: betanews.compulink.co.uk uk.politics.electoral:23112

Don's vote went down, but so did the turnout, his percentage
went up :-) The turnout in this election was down on 1992,
probably as a result of the length of the campaign and the
lack of excitement generated by it. Didn't the 9 o'clock
news after being extended to one hour lose half its viewers
?

Nigel

Stephen Goddard

unread,
Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97
to

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Guy Barry wrote:

> Stephen Goddard <sjoh...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >In the following 17 seats, of which 6 are notional gains, the Lib Dem
> >majority was greater than the total Labour vote, regardless of whether
> >that vote increased or decreased relative to 1992: Bath [...]
>
> That's certainly true. But the Lib Dem vote share in Bath only
> went up very slightly, and their numerical vote actually fell.
> I think the same is broadly true for most of the other seats
> held by the Lib Dems. The main gainers here in Bath were
> undoubtedly the Labour Party.

Well, yes, except in the sense that they didn't win the seat, they came
third and they are not in any conceivable position to challenge next time
since the party that holds the seat considerably tightened its grip on it.
Labour did quite well, sure, but I wouldn't say they were the main gainers
as such.

> Guy Barry (who voted for Don Foster!)

Jolly good :-)

Richard Collier

unread,
Jun 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/15/97
to

In article <EBsqv...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone seems to have said:
> In Article <5nod9j$8...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> > What "dirty" campaigning was there in Beckenham? All I have seen
> > mentioned so far is rather optimistic claims to be "the only one that can beat
> > the Tories" or similar.
>
> Optimistic or dishonest? IIRC there was an Observer poll saying New Labour
> was clearly second. LDs knew their claims were untrue.
>
> > Well, if that's "dirty" you'd have to say that almost every campaign run by
> > Labour and the LibDems where both were in contention for a Tory-held seat
> > was "dirty".
>
> I have not seen a false poll published by Labour. In any case, that is the
> two wrongs argument and I reject it, again.

Indeed locally the LDs here (Carshalton & Wallington) put out leaflets implying that
they had a proper private opinion poll undertaken in the constituency putting them
clearly out in front. It was therefore "interesting" to be told (by some of their
activists) that they'd hardly done any canvassing let alone paid for an opinion poll (i
wonder if the latter will be in their election expenses?).

That said I'm sure that Tom Brake will be an adequate MP although probably little
improvement on his Tory predecessor Nigel Foreman. I personally find him a little to
"economical with the reality" for my tastes.

> An LD supporter drew my attention to this describing it as misleading. He
> seemed to think all parties are up to this sort of thing. One day your
> supporters may discover that is wrong or the other parties may adopt your
> campaigning practices.
>
> If it's the latter, then LDs should look out.

Unfortunately I think its already beginning to happen.

> The two main parties have the
> resources, and influence, to avoid the courts.

Much of the "dirty tricks" are probably not actually illegal. They tend to rely on
careful chosen weasel words to make the reader form a particular opinion without
actually for example slandering or libelling anyone.

--
Richard Collier
(rcol...@roehampton.ac.uk)
(Tel 0181 715 6821)

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97
to

David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
> In Article <5nod9j$8...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> > > Isle of Dogs. Beckenham. Chelmsford W.
> >
> > The Isle of Dogs is in Tower Hamlets, and I have already discussed that
> > extensively.

> Your Newham parliamentary by-election candidate who left owing to racism in
> LDs.

Hah, another case I know of personally. I was secretary of Newham LibDems for
a while, and knew Alec Kellaway well. I've seen no evidence that his
defection to Labour was due to racism.

> > What "dirty" campaigning was there in Beckenham? All I have seen
> > mentioned so far is rather optimistic claims to be "the only one that can
> > beat the Tories" or similar.

> Optimistic or dishonest? IIRC there was an Observer poll saying New Labour
> was clearly second. LDs knew their claims were untrue.

No. There were newspaper poll published suggesting the Liberal Democrats
would be wiped out as there was huge swings to Labour even in the seats they
held. The Observer Poll was not the be all and end all. Claims that "we're the
ones to beat the Tories" are commonplace from third placed Labour candidates,
it's nonsense to suggest this is some sort of unusual "dirty" campaigning.

> > I think most people's idea of a "dirty" campaign would be something nastier
> > than that. What was the dirtiness you
> > claim in LibDem campaigning in Chelmsford West?

> Picture of sitting Tory MP at his central London home. Since he was a
> minister, this was not entirely unreasonable.

Why not? Chelmsford is within easy commuting distance to London. I think it's
an entirely valid point to make if a candidate chooses not to live in a
constituency, it's a factor whcih people may choose to bear in mind.

Your claim was that Liberal Democrats are more "dirty" campaigners than others.
I do not think this is borne out. I have seen plenty of strange claims about
LibDems in Tory and Labour leaflets. If they pointed out that a LibDem chose
not to live in his constituency, I'd regard it as a comparatively mild attack
compared to some of what I've seen. The Tories in my constituency put out
some pretty nasty attacking stuff, such as suggesting the Labour candidate
supported the IRA because she voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
But you don't see constant claims that the Tories are "dirty" campaigners,
do you, though this sort of thing is common from them.

Matthew Huntbach

Nigel Ashton

unread,
Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97
to

In article <5o3073$6...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes

>David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
>> In Article <5nod9j$8...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew
>Huntbach) wrote:

[snip]

>> > What "dirty" campaigning was there in Beckenham? All I have seen
>> > mentioned so far is rather optimistic claims to be "the only one that can
>> > beat the Tories" or similar.
>
>> Optimistic or dishonest? IIRC there was an Observer poll saying New Labour
>> was clearly second. LDs knew their claims were untrue.
>
>No. There were newspaper poll published suggesting the Liberal Democrats
>would be wiped out as there was huge swings to Labour even in the seats they
>held. The Observer Poll was not the be all and end all. Claims that "we're the
>ones to beat the Tories" are commonplace from third placed Labour candidates,
>it's nonsense to suggest this is some sort of unusual "dirty" campaigning.

The Labour Party in Southport made much of a 'poll' which they claimed
showed that they were second to the Conservaties in this seat. The
actual result was the LibDems gaining the seat from the Tories with a
good majority, and Labour coming a poor third.

--
Nigel Ashton
ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk
http://www.ashton.demon.co.uk/

I love the smell of ballot papers

I.K. Ridley

unread,
Jun 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/17/97
to

In article <866375...@vision25.demon.co.uk>,
Phil Hunt <ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <EBMw6...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>
> d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk "David Stone" writes:

>> Matthew protests too much. I don't think he'll be happy until, possibly
>> with Phil Hunt, he joins a political party with a sound base like Green,
>> Nigel's Liberals or, now how shall I put this, ummm, LABOUR.

>Why on earth would I (or anyone else for that matter) want to join
>a party whose leader is an open admirer of Thatcher and which is
>considering making ill people pay for being in hospital and being
>vistied by the doctor?

Not to mention continuing Tory policy of chronic under-investment in education,
Labour are trying desperately to scrape together cash by selling-off the London
Underground when eve the CBI says that taxes should be increased to take 2
billion pounds out of the economy. Instead it falls to the BoE to control
inflation by putting up interest rates. This hits UK exports as the pound
strengthens.

We also continue to have a 40% top tax rate whereas even Japan has a top rate
of 50%. The chains of the 1997 Labour Election manifesto are dragging the
government down. I bet Blair wishes he had a small majority so he could be
"forced" by the Liberal Democrats to put 1% on the basic rate and introduce a
new top rate of 50%. Instead all Labour can deliver is Tory tax levels, Tory
spending cuts and Tory dogma.

Ian Ridley
"It is increasingly falling to a handful of plucky Liberal Democrats to provide
principled opposition from all points left of the Conservative Party", Matthew
Parris, Parliamentary Sketch writer in The Times 7/6/96. Views expressed are
not neccessarily those of Leicester University, Leicester University Student
Liberal Democrats: http://www.le.ac.uk/CWIS/SU/SO/LDSOC/ldsoc.html or the
Liberal Democrats: http://www.libdems.org.uk/

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jun 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/17/97
to

Such things are not limited to GB. Sinn Fein were claiming to be the
party to vote for tactically to beat the Unionists in West Tyrone. They
even had huge banners in Omagh and Strabane town centres proclaiming
this. The banners were even still up 5 weeks after polling day! SF have
never beaten the SDLP in the boundaries of West Tyrone, even in the last
2 years, but they were claimed to be the best tactically placed to beat
the Unionists, and as a result enough SDLP voters voted 'tactically' to
let Willie Thompson in. I am not convinced this was not SF's aim all
along anyway.

In North Belfast Sinn Fein said that. 'Last year Sinn Fein beat the SDLP
in North Belfast. The combined Sinn Fein and SDLP vote was bigger
than the combined UUP and DUP vote. Sinn Fein were just 98 votes behind
the DUP. Only Sinn Fein can beat the Unionists in North Belfast.' All
absolutely true, except for the last sentence, which ignore the 6,500
Forum votes for the PUP,UDP and UKUP!

The SDLP similarly did a dogdy leaflet in South Belfast saying. 'Last
time we were only 961 votes behind the UUP in South Belfast.' And even
Alliance were guilty of such sins with an East Belfast leaflet saying.
'if Robinson's vote from 1992 splits evenly between Robinson and Empey we
will win.', complete with a cute bar-graph. Again they coneniently
ignored the 5,000 votes for the Tories and an Independent UU in East
Belfast in 1992.

The Unionists tend not to bother with this (Unionist election campaigns
tend to be mind bendingly apalling), but apart from that I have seen
leaflets by every other party in the UK (Lab,LD,Con,SNP,PC) which had
some VERY, VERY, dodgy tactical arguments.

I don't like the things, but as long as the 'X' vote is used, we will
have to live with them. For any activist of any party to complain about
them is mind bending hypocrisy.

Gerry Lynch

Belfast City Council: SF 13 SDLP 7 A 6 UUP 13 DUP 7 PUP 3 UDP 3 IndU 1

Alliance Website
http://www.unite.net/customers/alliance

'The tiny mind keeps order, the genius oversees chaos'

Guy Barry

unread,
Jun 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/18/97
to

In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970615...@sable.ox.ac.uk>,
Stephen Goddard <sjoh...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

>> That's certainly true. But the Lib Dem vote share in Bath only
>> went up very slightly, and their numerical vote actually fell.
>> I think the same is broadly true for most of the other seats
>> held by the Lib Dems. The main gainers here in Bath were
>> undoubtedly the Labour Party.
>
>Well, yes, except in the sense that they didn't win the seat, they came
>third and they are not in any conceivable position to challenge next time
>since the party that holds the seat considerably tightened its grip on it.

Only because the Tory vote fell so much. I agree that they're
in no position to challenge, but the main shift of opinion
here (and in virtually every other seat in the country) was
to Labour.

>> Guy Barry (who voted for Don Foster!)
>
>Jolly good :-)

Just to show I'm not biased :-)

Guy Barry
--

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97
to

David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:

> In Article <5o3073$6...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> > I was secretary of Newham LibDems for a while, and knew Alec Kellaway well.
> > I've seen no evidence that his defection to Labour was due to racism.

> Word on the street in East Ham is that's exactly what it was. Would have
> to be big for an LD candidate to defect in the middle of his campaign. Just
> changed his mind about New Labour? Yeah right.

As I said, I knew Kellaway fairly well. He didn't like Liberals because he was
basically a Social Democrat. He joined the Owenite SDP until it became clear
that would not be a route to power for him, he was never happy in the LibDems,
though that had nothing to do with supposed racism. I was not surprised at all
to find him defecting back to Labour, it was entirely consisent with his
political views, though he was a rat to do it after being selected as a LibDem
candidate in a Parliamentray by-election.

>> The Observer Poll was not the be all and end all.

> It was the only independent poll in Beckenham.

Sure, but it was not clear evidence that the LibDems were not capable of
doing well. Local LibDems would rely on other evidence such as local elections,
canvassing, the general "feel" etc. Of course, they would tend to be optimistic
to their side, but who isn't in an election?

>> Claims that "we're the
>> ones to beat the Tories" are commonplace from third placed Labour candidates,
>> it's nonsense to suggest this is some sort of unusual "dirty" campaigning.

> 2 wrongs argument. FOAD.

No. The case originally put was that the LibDems fight elections in a much
more "dirty" way than the other parties. So showing that the evidence given
for this "dirty" campaigning is just things done just as much by the other
parties is an effective argument against what was originally said.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:

> Article <5oasaf$h...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
>> As I said, I knew Kellaway fairly well. He didn't like Liberals because he
>> was basically a Social Democrat. He joined the Owenite SDP until it became
>> clear that would not be a route to power for him, he was never happy in the
>> LibDems, though that had nothing to do with supposed racism. I was not
>> surprised at all to find him defecting back to Labour, it was entirely
>> consisent with his political views, though he was a rat to do it after
>> being selected as a LibDem candidate in a Parliamentray by-election.

> He joinned LDs in PDR Newham as a route to power?

I believe so, yes.

> If you were not surprised, how come the LD franchise holders in Newham were
> so incompetant?

In what way? There wwere no grounds to deny him membership. The party
nationally would have approved him as candidate in the by-election. I am on
record as not thinking highly of the LD's parliamentary candidate approval
mechanism.

> AFAIK, Merchant is a reasonable, if incompetant, MP.

> As for Beckenham, LDs said they were close to removing Merchant but were
> 14 000 votes behind and third. Easy mistake? Yeah right. Then your party
> has the damm fucking gall to complain Labour did the same to you where LDs
> are 2nd.
> I aquit Matthew of this entirely. I don't know anything about him.

> Mind you, I do know . . . nar I'll not say. Wait for Out of Focus.

Oh, so you or someone you know is planning to do some dirty campaigning against
me? Isn't it "damm fucking gall" to mention that in a thread where you're
trying to suggest that it's we LibDems who are the dirty election fighters?

Matthew Huntbach

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

> Mind you, I do know . . . nar I'll not say. Wait for Out of Focus.

What is Out of Focus?????

Gerry Lynch

Belfast City Council: SF 13 SDLP 7 A 6 UUP 13 DUP 7 PUP 3 UDP 3 IndU 1

Alliance Website
http://www.unite.net/customers/alliance

'in vino veritas'

Mark Y-M

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

On 23 Jun 1997 09:40:31 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
wrote thus:

>Oh, so you or someone you know is planning to do some dirty campaigning against
>me? Isn't it "damm fucking gall" to mention that in a thread where you're
>trying to suggest that it's we LibDems who are the dirty election fighters?

He's just rude and over partisan. Not to mention *still* avoiding any
apology for his persistent lying about Paddy's attendance in the
Commons.

Mark Ynys-Môn : mark@@archdruid.demon..co..uk
http://www.libdems.org.uk/people/aos/delga/index.htm
"To strangle the last King with the entrails of the last Priest"
.....allegedly the ambition of Voltaire
Opinions etc are mine and not Demon Internet's

Mr A J Smith

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Henry Potts wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970623151019.1694A-100000@lupin>, Mr A J Smith
> <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes [...]
> >I'd have less trouble with LibDem tactics if they weren't so damn
> >self-righteous and hypocritical about it. The fact is that in my direct
> >experience of politics the most dishonest campaigning has been done by the
> >LibDems. I've never experienced anything similar from either my own party
> >or the Tories. And I've heard too many similar claims made by Labour
> >activists elsewhere in the country about the same thing. On top of that
> >there are the well known cases of dirty campaigning in the places you
> >mention above.
>
> And, strangely enough, my experiences have been that Labour plays far
> 'dirtier'. In my direct experience, they are less honest and I hear
> similar claims from people elsewhere in the country. On top of that,
> there are well known cases of dirty campaigning.
>
> However, instead of assuming that my experiences are a good sampling
> technique, being a good statistician, I realise I am probably wholly
> biased and I know that all parties can get pretty dirty when
> campaigning. When Labour supporters fail to realise the same, how
> hopelessly biased their own experiences must be, I don't know whether to
> put it down to naivete or self-righteousness...

Put it down to whatever the hell you like. The fact is that you will find
Labour activists up and down the country who would sooner trust the Tories
to play fair than your lot. If that doesn't bother you then fine.

> >Now even then I might not complain if they weren't the first people to
> >complain about the other party's tactics. They seem to treat any direct
> >attack on themselves or their party as some kind of crime.
>
> What supporter of any party does not act that way? Look at how you
> yourself -- or DB even -- react to the merest whiff of criticism
> directed at New Labour.

I've never called negative campaigning dirty.

> >Whether its Chris Davies complaining that Labour highlighted his views
> >on drugs,
>
> You say "highlighted", I might say "misrepresented". Further, his
> complaint was that Labour refuse to treat the drugs issue with
> sufficient respect, just going for a populist "war on drugs" kind of
> approach (as they still do), and that this illustrates how conservative
> Labour really are.

That may be an entirely valid point. However being populist, conservative,
or not respecting serious issues, is not dirty tactics, it's politics, and
only a Libdem could be so utterly self-righteous to claim otherwise.

> >or you complaining about Out of Focus, it's just pitiful.
>
> Similar complaints about a LibDem-produced mock Labour leaflet have been
> all over uk.p.e. lately. (You make them yourself below.) I fail to see
> LibDems being overly sensitive in comparison. (Or is it only pitiful
> when we do it, but not when you do it...)

The difference is that Out of Focus is clearly a parody that slags off the
LibDems, whereas the famous "Homes for Locals - Racist" leaflet was
not clearly a parody and its hard to see how anyone who's read them can
even compare the two.

> If you criticise the LibDems on a newsgroup with lots of LibDems, why on
> earth are you so surprised to see so many posts defending the LibDems?
> Is the only way we can pass your "self-righteousness" detector to just
> sit back and not say a word?
>
> You attack the LibDems here, so I am attacking Labour back. This is
> normal Usenet behaviour. It does not mean you or I are (or are not)
> self-righteous.

I didn't say you were self-righteous for defending the LibDems. The
self-righteousness comes into it when you start playing political martyrs
or condemning other party's for doing things that are not as bad as your
own party.

> What follows is rather boring Lab/LibDem insult trading, so readers are
> advised to skip to the next posting if easily bored.
>
> >Negative campaigning isn't the same as dirty campaigning. Dirty
> >campaigning is when you try and appeal to racism,
>
> (Several Labour councillors in London left the party because they found
> it too racist.)

They should complain to the party centrally.

> >or publicise the sexual orientation of your opponent,
>
> (Numerous Labour MPs don't even support equality on the grounds of
> sexual orientation and your leader even abstained on decriminalising
> homosexuality in the military.)

There is a difference between holding opinions you disagree with and
dirty campaigning.

> >or print leaflets that claim to be from your opponents,
>
> (That would be illegal. That is not quite what happened and no
> illegality occurred.)

I've read the leaflet.

> >or contact the local paper to tell them that your opponent is a single
> >mother,
>
> (Since when is telling papers something that is common knowledge so
> terrible?)

Bringing someone's marital status up is dirty, and I find it particularly
contemptible when it comes from a party that is big on self-righteously
declaring how liberal and non-judgemental they are when it comes to family
matters.

> >or you mislead people into thinking your policy is the exact
> >opposite of what it is.
>
> (New Labour fooled several million people into thinking it was the same
> party they had voted for in 1992!)

Oh hahahahaha.

> >When I see people from a party capable of all
> >that, complaining about every little attack on their party, the sheer and
> >utter hypocrisy shocks me.
>
> You are easily shocked. I advise you retreat from the real world.

....and join the Liberal Democrats?
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Andrew John Smith |"Andy is a thoroughly nice chap, he just |
| ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk |happens to believe that all problems can |
| homepage: |be solved by the application of rational |
| http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~mapej/ |principles and innate common sense" - jdc |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mark Y-M

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:59:54 +0100, Mr A J Smith
<ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote thus:

>> >or publicise the sexual orientation of your opponent,
>>
>> (Numerous Labour MPs don't even support equality on the grounds of
>> sexual orientation and your leader even abstained on decriminalising
>> homosexuality in the military.)

> There is a difference between holding opinions you disagree with and
> dirty campaigning.

The Labour candidate in a by-election in London last month sent
heavies to follow his (gay) LD opponent around and made phone calls to
him at night saying: "if you make any capital out of my connection
with xxx xxxxx i'll break your legs you fucking queer".

The LD candidate is a friend of mine and was absolutely petrified -
despite all entreaties to go to the police he refused as he was
convinced that he would be seriously harmed if he did.

Mark Y-M

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:39:19 +0100, Mr A J Smith
<ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote thus:

>Oh for pity's sake, these are Labour supporters talking to other Labour
>supporters, they have no need to throw mud.

What a bizarre statement.

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
> On 23 Jun 1997, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
> > Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
> > > Look I'd have less trouble with LibDem tactics if they weren't so damn

> > > self-righteous and hypocritical about it. The fact is that in my direct
> > > experience of politics the most dishonest campaigning has been done by the
> > > LibDems.
> >
> > Please detail some examples other than the couple which have been
> > discussed at length in this newsgroup.

> What do you think I did at the end of my message?

I reproduce the entire message to which I was replying below:

Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
* On 23 Jun 1997, Matthew Huntbach wrote:

* > As Mr.Stone has demonstrated, first they throw mud around with
* > their claims that the LibDems are "dirty campaigners" (see their usual lied
* > and distortions about Bermondsey, Tower Hamlets, etc), then they claim
* > that entitles them to play dirty back.

* Ah diddums.

* Look I'd have less trouble with LibDem tactics if they weren't so damn
* self-righteous and hypocritical about it. The fact is that in my direct
* experience of politics the most dishonest campaigning has been done by the
* LibDems. I've never experienced anything similar from either my own party
* or the Tories. And I've heard too many similar claims made by Labour
* activists elsewhere in the country about the same thing. On top of that
* there are the well known cases of dirty campaigning in the places you
* mention above.

* Now even then I might not complain if they weren't the first people to
* complain about the other party's tactics. They seem to treat any direct
* attack on themselves or their party as some kind of crime. Whether its
* Chris Davies complaining that Labour highlighted his views on drugs, or
* you complaining about Out of Focus, it's just pitiful. Negative
* campaigning isn't the same as dirty campaigning. Dirty campaigning is when
* you try and appeal to racism, or publicise the sexual orientation of your
* opponent, or print leaflets that claim to be from your opponents, or
* contact the local paper to tell them that your opponent is a single
* mother, or you mislead people into thinking your policy is the exact
* opposite of what it is. When I see people from a party capable of all
* that, complaining about every little attack on their party, the sheer and
* utter hypocrisy shocks me.
* _______________________________________________________________________________
* | Andrew John Smith |"Andy is a thoroughly nice chap, he just |
* | ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk |happens to believe that all problems can |
* | homepage: |be solved by the application of rational |
. | http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~mapej/ |principles and innate common sense" - jdc |
* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr.Smith makes some serious claims here - that the Liberal Democrats "appeal
to racism", "publicise the sexual orientation" of their opponents, "print
leaflets that claim to be from their opponents" and "contact the local paper
to tell them that their opponent is a single mother".

Mr.Smith's and Mr.Stone's claim is that the Liberal Democrats engage in
"dirty campaigning" in general, that is, it is not a matter of one or two
isolated incidents, but something which typifies Liberal Democrat campaigning
throughout the country. Yet despite being repeatedly asked, they have not
been able to substantiate their claims. The only new thing Mr.Smith has given
us is this single mother incident. I would appreciate a place and a date for
this incident, if it is as Mr.Smith says, then I agree it was wrong for the
local LibDems to do that, though seeing how Mr.Smith constantly lies and
distorts about the LibDems, I would not take his account on what they might
have done without strong suporting evidence from people who have more
respect for the truth.

The only evidence Mr.Smith has provided to back up his general claim of
racist and homophobic campaigning by the LibDems is these single cases of
Bermondsey and Tower Hamlets, which have already been discussed at length
in this newsgroup. The claims that the LibDems used homophobic campaigning
in Bermondsey have quite clearly been shown up to be lies. The claims that
the Liberal Democrats "pandered to racism" in Tower Hamlets have been shown
to be gross exaggerations. Mr.Smith has provided no evidence whatsoever that
anything like this has ever been done anywhere else by the LibDems, so his
suggestion that this is general LibDem practice is shown to be quite baseless.
Yet this is used as an excuse to use dirty campaiging against Liberal Democrats
everywhere on the grounds of "They deserve it, because they campaign in a dirty
manner".

> > How many times do you have to be asked? Give us the details of some examples
> > of LibDem "dirty campaigning" of the sort you have never experienced from
> > your own party or the Tories.

> I did.

No, you did not. If it is as general as you claim, you should have no trouble
giving us a few examples, and some more clear examples of racism and homophobia
than those disputable examples you used, and which have already been discussed
at great length in this newsgroup.

> > That is what this thread is about - claims have
> > been made that the LibDems fight dirtier campaigns than the other parties,
> > but those making those claims have been quite unable to substantiate them.

> Oh for pity's sake. What am I supposed to do, collect every Libbdem
> leaflet I've ever seen, and get signed statements from everyone who's been
> told something nasty by a Libdem on the doorstep?

Provide at least some evidence for your very serious claims. Or withdraw
those claims as baseless.

> > Rather it seems there is a deliberate ploy of making these claims on a
> > "mud sticks" basis in order to justify their own dirty campaigning.

> I'm sorry but if you think that then you suffering from an inflated sense
> of your party's importance. I have never been involved in a campaign where
> the Libdems stood a chance, I have absolutely no reason to justify dirty
> campaigning against the LibDems. I have no need, Libdems don't tend to
> hold up too well under pressure, even moderate attention to their own
> records gets them screaming.

I am suggesting that when Labour is up against a LibDem challenge, as they
have been in Liverpool, Littleborough and Saddleworth, Tower Hamlets, and
Bermondsey, they turn nasty, and if the LibDems win, Labour inevitably can't
accept being fairly defeated, and resort to mud-flinging techniques to
explain their loss.

> > > And I've heard too many similar claims made by Labour
> > > activists elsewhere in the country about the same thing.
> >

> > Give us the details, PLEASE,

> What the details of all the Labour activists who have said that they've
> found the LibDems to be dirty campaigners? Why?

To justify your claims that the LibDems use racism and homophobia in
campaigning IN GENERAL. If it is something that is frequently done, as you are
suggesting, you should have no problem giving us the details of a few
examples. Otherwise you are shown up as a liar.

> > and hopefully there will be some LibDems who know about them to be able to
> >explain what really lies behind the Labour mud.

> Oh for pity's sake, these are Labour supporters talking to other Labour
> supporters, they have no need to throw mud.

Tell us what they are saying then, or withdraw your claims, or be exposed as
a liar. It's your choice.

> > > Now even then I might not complain if they weren't the first people to
> > > complain about the other party's tactics. They seem to treat any direct

> > > attack on themselves or their party as some kind of crime. Whether its
> > > Chris Davies complaining that Labour highlighted his views on drugs, or
> > > you complaining about Out of Focus, it's just pitiful. Negative


> > > campaigning isn't the same as dirty campaigning.
> >

> > All I'm complaining about is your hypocrisy. When Labour does it, it's
> > just "acceptable negative campaigning, diddums",

> Does what? Given an example of me defending dirty campaigning, something
> along the lines of those in the examples I gave.

Many (including Labour MPs) would say that the Labour campaign against Chris
Davies in Littleborough and Saddleworth, particularly the use of the drugs
issue, was dirty campaigning. You defend it in your paragraph quoted above.

> > when the LibDems do it it's
> > "outrageous dirty campaigning, Labour and the Tories would never stoop to
> > that".

> I've never said that. In fact there are examples I can think of in which
> they have. I certainly wouldn't put anything past the Tories. The only
> difference is that it hasn't been bad enough to give them a reputation for
> it. That's all I'm pointing out.

Go back to your article I quote above, marked with asterisks. Look at the
second paragraph of yours, after your words "ah diddums". You quite clearly
claim there that "in your direct experience" the LibDems engage in
"dishonest campaining" which you "have never experienced" from your own party
or from the Tories. That directly contradicts what you write in your paragraph
above. Which of those two paragraphs of yours is the lie?

> > My argument is that the LibDems do not behave any worse than the other
> > parties, and I am yet to see a counter-argument.

> You may have to be involved in one of the other parties to see it. Anyway
> I see little point arguing about it. If you want to see hidden agendas
> behind what I say go ahead. I don't believe newsgroups persuade anybody to
> switch there votes, I just see it as a useful way of transmitting
> information and ideas.

It has usefully revealed that members of the Labour Party lie like crazy
when it comes to talking about the Liberal Democrats, and I hope that means
casual readers will be a little less likely to believe these Labour lies
about Liberal Democrat "dirty campaigning" now you have been shown up quite
clearly as unable to substantiate what you said, or even to maintain a
non-contradictory line across a couple of articles.

> Now the information I'm imparting here is that
> from an activists point of view the Libdems fight dirtier than the other
> parties. Feel free to ignore it, deny it, or whatever.

> > As I have pointed out, the single example cited so far of the LibDems
> > "appealling to racism" is nothing of the sort.

> I've seen the leaflet concerned and I've heard your denials about it
> before. All I can say is that you should remove the blinkers some time.

I have felt quite free to criticise my party on usenet before (Labour took
some of my criticisms from usenet, put them on a leaflet, and circulated them
on the eve of a by-election in my ward, remember), and would do so again if I
felt it deserved it. So I am by no means someone with blinkers who is unable
to see faults in his own party. I remain of the opinion that the LibDem
leaflets that were supposedly "appealling to racism" were doing nothing of
the sort.

> Oh forget it, I've given a list of things I've encountered so you
> understand why I hold the opinion I do. I really couldn't give a damn
> whether you choose to believe it or not.

You have not given a single example you've encountered. You have just
mentioned in passing Bermondsey and Tower Hamlets, where by your own admission
you have not been personally involved (since you say you've never been up
against a LibDem campaign where the LibDems were in a winnable position).
You have been challenged to give an example you have encountered, you have
been unable to give an example. You have been shown up to be a liar.

Matthew Huntbach

Ian Johnston

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

Gerry Lynch (gi0...@hotmail.com) wrote:

: You obviously weren't in Littleborough and Saddleworth then Andrew.

Can someone remind me - I honestly can't remember - which party it was at the
Eastbourne by-election who pulled the "A vote for X is a vote for the IRA"
stunt?

That struck me at the time as a very nasty bit of campaigning. It sounds
Tory - was it?

Ian

David Stone

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

In Article <5olgaf$l...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> > He joinned LDs in PDR Newham as a route to power?
>
> I believe so, yes.

This is silly - join LDs to get power in Newham? Come on.

> > If you were not surprised, how come the LD franchise holders in Newham were
> > so incompetant?
>
> In what way? There wwere no grounds to deny him membership. The party
> nationally would have approved him as candidate in the by-election. I am on
> record as not thinking highly of the LD's parliamentary candidate approval
> mechanism.

IIRC having someone as a parliamentary candidate and offering them membership
are not the same. How on earth did someone with such a dubious support
for your philosophy get so high? He supported your philosophy.

> Oh, so you or someone you know is planning to do some dirty campaigning against
> me? Isn't it "damm fucking gall" to mention that in a thread where you're
> trying to suggest that it's we LibDems who are the dirty election fighters?

I am not planning anything against you at all. Some Labour people, and some
Tories, are separately considering harder hitting, but no less truthful,
alternatives to Fuckus. When some Labour representatives receive insulting
letters with copies of Focus misleading claims, it is understandable that
they will consider an equally blunt response.

I am sure Matthew is not the prospective target.

It is not "we" LibDems at all. Matthew has nothing, I am sure, to do with
other LDs. Matthew's a decent chap.
--


Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:

> Matthew, for pity's sake, I hardly expect you (or anyone else) to read my
> comments and immediately leave the Libdems and join one of the proper
> parties. I've no reason to lie to you. I'm telling you my opinion because
> you deserve to know it. Don't call me a liar just 'cause you happen to
> find my comments unpalatable.

I'm calling you a liar because you stated you had direct experience that
the Liberal Democrats fight elections in a "dirty" manner, which the other
parties do not. You stated clearly that by "dirty" you meant the use of
racism and homophobia. But when asked to give just a single example to
substantiate your claims you could not, and resorted to a "friend of a friend
told me" argument.

If your comments about racism and homophobia in the Liberal Democrats are true,
tell me, I want to know - I myself would want to chase out such things from my
party, and would welcome evidence you could supply that it exists. But I am
wary about these unsubstantiated claims because in those situations I know
about through my own personal experience, I know the claims Labour makes are
just not true, in fact I've seen enough of them to believe that these claims
are spread as a deliberate tactic by Labour in order to undermine the LibDems.

So either substantiate your claims by giving us examples of your
*direct* experience of LibDem racism and homophobia, or have the grace to
withdraw. If you do neither, you show yourself up clearly as a liar.

Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
> In Article <5olgaf$l...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
> > > He joinned LDs in PDR Newham as a route to power?
> >
> > I believe so, yes.

> This is silly - join LDs to get power in Newham? Come on.

He joined the SDP at the height of its boom when it looked like it would
be a quick route to power. He was in the Owenite SDP after the merger
because, misled by press reports, he thought that would amount to something.
He only joined the LibDems when it became clear the Owenites would not
amount to anything. He had a grossly inflated view of the likelihood of
being elected in Newham South, which was his own constituency (he only stood
in Newham NE in the by-election), which was more marginal than the rest of
Newham and where his own ward on the council was. When he realised he was
mistaken, he joined Labour. I can tell you this through knowing the man
personally.

> > > If you were not surprised, how come the LD franchise holders in Newham
> > > were so incompetant?
> >
> > In what way? There wwere no grounds to deny him membership. The party
> > nationally would have approved him as candidate in the by-election. I am on
> > record as not thinking highly of the LD's parliamentary candidate approval
> > mechanism.

> IIRC having someone as a parliamentary candidate and offering them membership
> are not the same. How on earth did someone with such a dubious support
> for your philosophy get so high? He supported your philosophy.

Oh, come on, there's a fair degree of overlap between the right-wing of the
Labour Party and the right-wing of the SDP, and a smooth-talking type like
Kellaway could easily move from one to the other, impressing candidate
selection panels.

> > Oh, so you or someone you know is planning to do some dirty campaigning
> > against me? Isn't it "damm fucking gall" to mention that in a thread where
> > you're trying to suggest that it's we LibDems who are the dirty election
> > fighters?

> I am not planning anything against you at all. Some Labour people, and some
> Tories, are separately considering harder hitting, but no less truthful,
> alternatives to Fuckus. When some Labour representatives receive insulting
> letters with copies of Focus misleading claims, it is understandable that
> they will consider an equally blunt response.

I forget your exact words, but they were something like "I don't know Matthew
personally, but wait till the next 'Out of Focus' for some revelations".
That sounded very much to me like a personal threat that some dirt would be
circlated on me in the borough elections where I'll be up for re-election next
year. That was not an idle threat either, since I *was* the victim of this
sort of thing in a by-election in my ward two years ago when words I had
written in an electronic forum were taken out of context, put on paper, and
circulated by the Labour Party.

Matthew Huntbach


Mr A J Smith

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

On 25 Jun 1997, Matthew Huntbach wrote:

> Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
>

> > Matthew, for pity's sake, I hardly expect you (or anyone else) to read my
> > comments and immediately leave the Libdems and join one of the proper
> > parties. I've no reason to lie to you. I'm telling you my opinion because
> > you deserve to know it. Don't call me a liar just 'cause you happen to
> > find my comments unpalatable.
>
> I'm calling you a liar because you stated you had direct experience that
> the Liberal Democrats fight elections in a "dirty" manner,

Which is true.

> which the other parties do not.

I said I had never personally experienced it, not that no other party ever
plays dirty.

> You stated clearly that by "dirty" you meant the use of
> racism and homophobia.

No I didn't. That was merely two examples, among several, of dirty
tactics, which I mentioned so as to make the distinction between negative
campaigning and dirty campaigning.

> But when asked to give just a single example to
> substantiate your claims you could not, and resorted to a "friend of a friend
> told me" argument.

No, I didn't.

> If your comments about racism and homophobia in the Liberal Democrats
> are true, tell me, I want to know - I myself would want to chase out
> such things from my party, and would welcome evidence you could supply
> that it exists.

Well first you'd have to rid yourself of your tendency to believe any
excuse a Liberal Democrat makes. I've seen the Tower Hamlets leaflets,
it's kind of hard to miss what they were up to.

> But I am
> wary about these unsubstantiated claims because in those situations I know
> about through my own personal experience, I know the claims Labour makes are
> just not true, in fact I've seen enough of them to believe that these claims
> are spread as a deliberate tactic by Labour in order to undermine the LibDems.
>
> So either substantiate your claims by giving us examples of your
> *direct* experience of LibDem racism and homophobia, or have the grace to
> withdraw. If you do neither, you show yourself up clearly as a liar.

No I don't, because except in your fevered imagination, I have never
claimed to have direct experience of LibDem's using homophobia and racism.
_______________________________________________________________________________


| Andrew John Smith |"Andy is a thoroughly nice chap, he just |

| ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk |happens to believe that all problems can |

| homepage: |be solved by the application of rational |

| http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~mapej/ |principles and innate common sense" - jdc |

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I.K. Ridley

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970625123121.25622A-100000@lupin>,

Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 25 Jun 1997, Matthew Huntbach wrote:

>> If your comments about racism and homophobia in the Liberal Democrats
>> are true, tell me, I want to know - I myself would want to chase out
>> such things from my party, and would welcome evidence you could supply
>> that it exists.

>Well first you'd have to rid yourself of your tendency to believe any
>excuse a Liberal Democrat makes. I've seen the Tower Hamlets leaflets,
>it's kind of hard to miss what they were up to.

Hard to miss if you are already part of Millbank Tower's agenda of half-truths,
smears to discredit a perceived threat to Labour's urban hegemony.

Hard to spot if what most people involved in TH who have described the leaflets
it true. I yet to see the specific texts and pictures that Labour like to
pretend are pandering to racism actually described and cited by any Labour
accusers.

Ian Ridley
"Given its refusal to raise tax, voting Labour was a way for the wealthy to
to protect their self-interest and salve their consciences at once", Mark
Smulian, June 1997. Views expressed are not neccessarily those of Leicester
University, Leicester University Liberal Democrat Students:

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
> On 25 Jun 1997, Matthew Huntbach wrote:

> > Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
> >

> > > Matthew, for pity's sake, I hardly expect you (or anyone else) to read my
> > > comments and immediately leave the Libdems and join one of the proper
> > > parties. I've no reason to lie to you. I'm telling you my opinion because
> > > you deserve to know it. Don't call me a liar just 'cause you happen to
> > > find my comments unpalatable.
> >
> > I'm calling you a liar because you stated you had direct experience that
> > the Liberal Democrats fight elections in a "dirty" manner,

> Which is true.

> > which the other parties do not.

> I said I had never personally experienced it, not that no other party ever
> plays dirty.

> > You stated clearly that by "dirty" you meant the use of
> > racism and homophobia.

> No I didn't. That was merely two examples, among several, of dirty
> tactics, which I mentioned so as to make the distinction between negative
> campaigning and dirty campaigning.

Your comments certainly seemed to suggest that the *general* "dirtiness"
of LibDem campaigning was its supposed racist and homophobic nature.
You now seem to be holding to your claim that the Liberal Democrats are
"dirty" campaigners in general, but dropping the suggestion that they use
racism and homophobism in general. Fine, now PLEASE give us some examples
of Liberal Democrat dirty campaiging which YOU have experienced personally
to substantiate your claim that you personally have found Liberal Democrats
to campaign in a more "dirty" way than the other parties. You have been asked
to do this, you have failed to do so, despite the fact that being personal
experience as you claim, it should be no problem to recount it.

> > If your comments about racism and homophobia in the Liberal Democrats
> > are true, tell me, I want to know - I myself would want to chase out
> > such things from my party, and would welcome evidence you could supply
> > that it exists.

> Well first you'd have to rid yourself of your tendency to believe any
> excuse a Liberal Democrat makes. I've seen the Tower Hamlets leaflets,
> it's kind of hard to miss what they were up to.

It is not enough when you are making a claim of *general* "dirty" campaigning
just to keep quoting one isolated example. You have to show this example is
typical of many others, which you have not. And I am sorry, but we have gone
through this before, I know something of what this is about having been
peripherally involved with Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats, and in my judgement
there was no intention to use racism in these leaflets. In one there was an
intention to draw attention to a Labour controlled devolved neighbourhood
using funding unwisely by giing a grant to an organisation which had done
little for the community it was supposed to work for, in another there was a
graphic of a boxer, intended to illustrate the theme of the Liberal Democrats
fighting for the neighbourhood, which some racist-minded Labour Party people
wrongly took to be meant to be an illustration of local thugs.

Matthew Huntbach

Richard Gadsden

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

In <33AFBF...@hotmail.com>, on Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:37:53 +0100,
Gerry Lynch <gi0...@hotmail.com> wrote in uk.politics.electoral:

[L&S]

>Other nice things that came from that by-election were accusing LibDem
>councillors of lying when Labour knew it was misreported and having
>caricatures of local LibDem councillors as farmyard animals on your
>leaflets.

Not to mention trying to run over a LibDem activist.

I shall not give details of that in a public forum without the
permission of the individual involved.
--
Richard Gadsden ric...@tga.u-net.com [note address]
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

David Stone

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

In Article <33AFBF...@hotmail.com>, Gerry Lynch <gi0...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Quote from senior Labour MP after Littleborough and Saddleworth: 'I hate
> to think what our campaign would have been like if the Liberal candidate
> had been homosexual, or had a foreign name.'

This is evidence of nothing. Why can't you quote it and let us decide for
ourselves?
--


David Stone

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

In Article <5ooitv$l...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> Mr.Smith's and Mr.Stone's claim is that the Liberal Democrats engage in
> "dirty campaigning" in general, that is, it is not a matter of one or two
> isolated incidents, but something which typifies Liberal Democrat campaigning
> throughout the country. Yet despite being repeatedly asked, they have not
> been able to substantiate their claims.

That is not true.

> The only new thing Mr.Smith has given us is this single mother incident.
> I would appreciate a place and a date for this incident,

Harriet Harpenson's by-election - Peckham mid 80's.

> The only evidence Mr.Smith has provided to back up his general claim of
> racist and homophobic campaigning by the LibDems is these single cases of
> Bermondsey and Tower Hamlets, which have already been discussed at length

IOD?

> > Oh for pity's sake. What am I supposed to do, collect every Libbdem
> > leaflet I've ever seen, and get signed statements from everyone who's been
> > told something nasty by a Libdem on the doorstep?
>
> Provide at least some evidence for your very serious claims. Or withdraw
> those claims as baseless.

You need a filing cabinet, sources accross the countries, opponents to send
Labour alleged filth, and a date stamp because Fuckus is usually undated.

> I am suggesting that when Labour is up against a LibDem challenge, as they
> have been in Liverpool, Littleborough and Saddleworth, Tower Hamlets, and
> Bermondsey, they turn nasty, and if the LibDems win, Labour inevitably can't
> accept being fairly defeated, and resort to mud-flinging techniques to
> explain their loss.

We can explain our Isle of Dogs gain.

> To justify your claims that the LibDems use racism and homophobia in
> campaigning IN GENERAL.

That is not my case and I doubt if it's Andy's either. You only use racism
and homophobia where appropriate. You don't use it when you have a gay
candidate. You lot are dirty - not stupid.

But you are immature. In Rochdale you sought votes as the only viable
alternative to Labour. Bit silly for 1 May 1997, ne pas?

> If it is something that is frequently done, as you are
> suggesting, you should have no problem giving us the details of a few
> examples. Otherwise you are shown up as a liar.

A non-sequitor showing you cannot cope. And I can provide copies.

> Many (including Labour MPs) would say that the Labour campaign against Chris
> Davies in Littleborough and Saddleworth, particularly the use of the drugs
> issue, was dirty campaigning. You defend it in your paragraph quoted above.

All Labour said was, as a proponent of LD policies, he was soft on drugs.
That's true. Now you'd like to change subject and say why your drugs policy
is right. That's irrelevant. Fact is, LDs are soft on drugs.

> It has usefully revealed that members of the Labour Party lie like crazy
> when it comes to talking about the Liberal Democrats, and I hope that means
> casual readers will be a little less likely to believe these Labour lies
> about Liberal Democrat "dirty campaigning" now you have been shown up quite
> clearly as unable to substantiate what you said, or even to maintain a
> non-contradictory line across a couple of articles.

Nar. We don't need to lie when your PPC publishes tough on crime Fokei
after getting done for cottaging.

> You have been shown up to be a liar.

Corse. You like that word don't ya?
--


David Stone

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

In Article <5oqsgv$b...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> I'm calling you a liar because

It's your favourite word :-)

> So either substantiate your claims by giving us examples of your
> *direct* experience of LibDem racism and homophobia,

Are you asking me to quote from IOD Fuckus? Not to mention the LD published
Labour News where you call yourselves Liberals.

> If you do neither, you show yourself up clearly as a liar.

See what I mean?
--


David Stone

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

In Article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970625123121.25622A-100000@lupin>, Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

> No I don't, because except in your fevered imagination, I have never
> claimed to have direct experience of LibDem's using homophobia and racism.

Well send me your snail mail address and I'll get ya some photo copies.
--


Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
> Aside from the junk I receive thru my door, most the complaints I hear about
> LDs come from LD voting christians. Labour members who complain about LDs are
> generally experienced and right wing.

As someone else said, this thread keeps coming up in this nesgroup because
people, generally Labour supporters, have this tendency to drop remarks along
the lines of "of course the Liberal Democrats are dirty camapigners" as if
that is a matter of fact everyone accepts. Well I don't accept that, and I will
challenge people who make such remarks. This is not the Guardian newspaper,
you know. Here we LibDems can get in to fight back.

Matthew Huntbach

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to

Well, it was in the all new true blue Labour supporting Guardian, so
it's hardly an anti-Labour rant. Not having a photographic memory for
dates, I don't know which issue it was in but I suspect it was in either
August or September 1995.

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to

Gerry Lynch (gi0...@hotmail.com) wrote:

> Ian Johnston wrote:
> >
> > That struck me at the time as a very nasty bit of campaigning. It sounds
> > Tory - was it?

> Wasn't that 'a vote for Labour is a vote for the IRA' from Darlington
> this year (a Tory leaflet, I hasten to add).

The Tories used it in East Lewisham, bad-mouthing the restanding Labour MP
as "pro-IRA" for opposing the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and making
reference to the fact that one of the victims of the Canary Wharf bomb
lived in the constituency.

Matthew Huntbach

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to

Ian Johnston wrote:
>
> Gerry Lynch (gi0...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> : You obviously weren't in Littleborough and Saddleworth then Andrew.
>
> Can someone remind me - I honestly can't remember - which party it was at the
> Eastbourne by-election who pulled the "A vote for X is a vote for the IRA"
> stunt?

>
> That struck me at the time as a very nasty bit of campaigning. It sounds
> Tory - was it?

Wasn't that 'a vote for Labour is a vote for the IRA' from Darlington
this year (a Tory leaflet, I hasten to add).

Something like that could well have been used by the Tories in
Eastbourne, given that the by-election followed Ian Gow's murder by the
IRA.

Paul Martin

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to

In article <5p0mo8$u...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
>>The first election I voted in was the local election in Oxford, around 1987
>>or so. I remember very well that the Alliance brought out two quite
>>separate campaign leaflets, one for Central Ward (which is essentially
> occupied
>>solely by students), promising support for student problems, and one for the
>>rest of the city, which blamed most of the city's problems on students.
>
>Was one by the Libs another by the SDP? You may have a point, though were
>they actually stating contradictory policies, as opposed merely to making
>different emphases? I mean it is possible both for students to cause problems
>and to have problems, so I don't necessarily see a contradiction here.

I also think it's fair to say that this kind of 'contradiction' is not
restricted to LDs in local Oxford politics. Both Labour and Tories, for
example, normally support pedestrianisation in Central Ward although there are
significant elements in both parties' other city and county groups who have
opposed it vigorously. (Greens and LDs have uniformly been in favour on City
and on County.) There are doubtless other issues on which Greens and LDs have
different policies for different areas.

I think it's also rather silly to base the rest of your voting life on
something that happened at least ten years ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every girl in Constantinople lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople,
So if you've a date in Constantinople, she'll be waiting in Istanbul..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Martin, Nuffield College, Oxford, OX1 1NF Email: paul.martin@
Tel. [01865] (2)78965 http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jo95017 nuffield.ox.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to

Jonathan Jones (jaj...@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
>The first election I voted in was the local election in Oxford, around 1987
>or so. I remember very well that the Alliance brought out two quite
>separate campaign leaflets, one for Central Ward (which is essentially occupied
>solely by students), promising support for student problems, and one for the
>rest of the city, which blamed most of the city's problems on students.

>I'm not sure whether you would count this as "dirty" campaigning, but at the
>time I thought it was (1) hypocritical, and (2) incredibly stupid, as about
>50% of students lived outside central ward, and so would see both leaflets.

Was one by the Libs another by the SDP? You may have a point, though were
they actually stating contradictory policies, as opposed merely to making
different emphases? I mean it is possible both for students to cause problems
and to have problems, so I don't necessarily see a contradiction here.

Matthew Huntbach

Mr A J Smith

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to

On 25 Jun 1997, I.K. Ridley wrote:

> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

> >On 25 Jun 1997, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>
> >> If your comments about racism and homophobia in the Liberal Democrats
> >> are true, tell me, I want to know - I myself would want to chase out
> >> such things from my party, and would welcome evidence you could supply
> >> that it exists.
>
> >Well first you'd have to rid yourself of your tendency to believe any
> >excuse a Liberal Democrat makes. I've seen the Tower Hamlets leaflets,
> >it's kind of hard to miss what they were up to.
>

> Hard to miss if you are already part of Millbank Tower's agenda of
> half-truths, smears to discredit a perceived threat to Labour's urban
> hegemony.

Yeah, yeah it's all a conspiracy, it couldn't possibly be that LibDems
were at fault.

Henry Potts

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to

In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970627012639.27480C-100000@lupin>, Mr A J
Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes
>On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Henry Potts wrote:
>
>> You admit that you don't have direct experience of what happend in Tower
>> Hamlets, so why should I believe you over people who did?
>
>Because I've actually read the leaflets.

So have I. (Well, I'm not certain I've read all of them.) They are not
what I would put out, but I found nothing racist in them. (I have also
read the claims Labour put out, that the BNP was doing well in a poll in
a by-election, which were complete *lies*.)

Meanwhile, are you familiar with the stories behind those leaflets? Are
you aware of the LibDem internal investigation that followed, its
conclusions and actions? Are you even familiar with Tower Hamlets?
Primed by allegations you had previously hear from a Labour party whose
own behaviour was most reprehensible, perhaps you have misinterpreted
some leaflets and you apparently remain ignorant of the full story. You
don't strike me as an expert witness. Sorry. :(
--
Henry

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/27/97
to


Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
> On 25 Jun 1997, Matthew Huntbach wrote:

> > You now seem to be holding to your claim that the Liberal Democrats are
> > "dirty" campaigners in general, but dropping the suggestion that they use
> > racism and homophobism in general.

> Nobody ever claimed they use racism and homophobia in general. That would
> be silly.

What you wrote could clearly be read as claiming the LibDems use racism and
homopobia in general. You said that the LibDems were more "dirty" campaigners
than other parties, and you said that by "dirty" you meant the use of racism
and homophobia. Any casual reader would conclude form that you were saying that
the LibDems use racism and homophobia in general. You did not give much in
the way of other behaviour which justifies you "more dirty than the other
parties" line.

> > Fine, now PLEASE give us some examples
> > of Liberal Democrat dirty campaiging which YOU have experienced personally
> > to substantiate your claim that you personally have found Liberal Democrats
> > to campaign in a more "dirty" way than the other parties. You have been
> > asked to do this, you have failed to do so, despite the fact that being
> > personal experience as you claim, it should be no problem to recount it.

> Okay, when in a constituency where the Labour candidate was a single
> mother, the Libdems contacted the local paper to point this out.

OK, name the constituency, give the date.

> When in another constituency the Libdems put out leaflets attacking Labour
> in scathing terms for a policy which the LibDems actually supported.

Ditto. Tell us what the policy is.

>> It is not enough when you are making a claim of *general* "dirty" campaigning
>> just to keep quoting one isolated example. You have to show this example is
>> typical of many others, which you have not. And I am sorry, but we have gone
>> through this before, I know something of what this is about having been
>> peripherally involved with Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats, and in my
>> judgement there was no intention to use racism in these leaflets.

> If you can't accept wrongdoings in specific examples I see absolutely no
> reason to research every example I can find to show it is very widespread.

It happens I have first-hand experience of the examples Labour is always quick
to jump to. In the case of Bermondsey, Labour tell straight lies, about these
"I've been kissed ..." badges. In the case of Tower Hamlets they grossly
exaggerate what was done. For example, lines like "local homes for local
people" were criticised as being grossly racist, well surprise, surprise, just
that line was used by the Press Officer for Battersea Labour Party in a letter
to the South London Press a few weeks ago. Seems when Labour say that, it's
proper concern for local people and their housing problems, but when the
LibDems say it, it's stirring up racism. Or, as I said, is it Labour looking
to play the race card on every occasion they can, looking for racism where
it wasn't intended, and not caring how this sort of negative campaiging itself
stirs up racial tensions?

>> In one there was an
>> intention to draw attention to a Labour controlled devolved neighbourhood
>> using funding unwisely by giing a grant to an organisation which had done
>> little for the community it was supposed to work for, in another there was a
>> graphic of a boxer, intended to illustrate the theme of the Liberal Democrats
>> fighting for the neighbourhood, which some racist-minded Labour Party people
>> wrongly took to be meant to be an illustration of local thugs.

> Couldn't possibly have been because the leaflet was about crime?

The leaflet was poorly designed, because of the possibility of the
misinterpretation you make, but my honest opinion knowing the people
responsible for it, is that there was no intention of being racist.
Anyone who knew the area the leaflet was circulating in would know the
racial tension there was between whites and Bangladeshis. There isn't much
of an Afro-Carribean population there, so no-one would take a cartoon of
an Afro-Carribean boxer as referring to elements of the local population.

Matthew Huntbach

Nigel Ashton

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

In article <5p0mcf$u...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes

>
>
>Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
>> On 25 Jun 1997, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> > You now seem to be holding to your claim that the Liberal Democrats are
>> > "dirty" campaigners in general, but dropping the suggestion that they use
>> > racism and homophobism in general.
>
>> Nobody ever claimed they use racism and homophobia in general. That would
>> be silly.
>
>What you wrote could clearly be read as claiming the LibDems use racism and
>homopobia in general.

I have to agree with Matthew here. I understood your posting as saying
that the Liberal Democrats generally (i.e. often, rather than always)
resort to racism and homophobia in local campaigning. That is simply not
true.

I am no friend of the LibDems, but I have to say that almost all of
their campaigns that I have seen have been legal, decent and honest (and
I have been aware of a lot of LibDem campaigns, having worked as
Secretary General of the post-1988 Liberal Party for six years).

I am aware of a couple of dispicable, and dishonest, LibDem campaigns,
although they weren't racist or homophobic, but I have seen similar from
Labour, and I have to admit that there has been the odd Liberal Party
campaign I would not have wished to be associated with.

Most election campaigns are run by the people on the ground. Sometimes
these fall short of the public morality of the appropriate national
party. Parliamentary by-elections tend to be run by people from HQ. Some
of these campaigns fall short of the morality esposed by the relevant
national party.

This thread, with its continuing allegations and counter allegations
between David Stone, AJ Smith and Matthew Huntbach is very much into
*pot, kettle, black* terratory.

I think we should all agree that all parties do dishonest campagining at
times. I deprecate that fact, but I would prefer to spend my time tring
to make the political system better, rather than continuously re-hashing
old crimes.

--
Nigel Ashton
ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk
http://www.ashton.demon.co.uk/

I love the smell of ballot papers

Nigel Ashton

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

In article <ECEr6...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone
<d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> writes

Note: The following is re: one Alex Kellaway who was the LibDem
candidate in a parliamentary by-election in Newham, but who defected to
the Labour Party immediately before polling day. The posting I quote is
from David Srone, who in turn quotes Matthew Huntbach.

>In Article <5oqtco$b...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
>wrote:
>


> > > This is silly - join LDs to get power in Newham? Come on.
> >
> > He joined the SDP at the height of its boom when it looked like it would
> > be a quick route to power. He was in the Owenite SDP after the merger
> > because, misled by press reports, he thought that would amount to something.
>

>Therefore he is stupid.
[snip]
>Therefore he is stupid.
[snip]
>Therefore he is stupid.
[snip]
>Therefore he is very intelligent.

That makes him stupid by a three-quarters majority according to your own
posts.

Nigel Ashton

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

In article <5p0mo8$u...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes

Come on Matthew, you are trying too hard here.

Can't you agree that your party (or our party if it was in 1987) makes
mistakes sometimes.

Your elaborate counter-criticism to every attack on your party indicates
a degree of insecurity.

Nigel Ashton

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

In article <3G9DLXA2...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts
<he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970627012639.27480C-100000@lupin>, Mr A J
>Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Henry Potts wrote:
>>
>>> You admit that you don't have direct experience of what happend in Tower
>>> Hamlets, so why should I believe you over people who did?
>>
>>Because I've actually read the leaflets.
>
>So have I. (Well, I'm not certain I've read all of them.) They are not
>what I would put out, but I found nothing racist in them.

I have seen the *boxer* leaflet. I have to say that I saw nothing wrong
with it, apart from the fact that the artwork was poorly produced. I was
much more concerned about the leaflet that appeared to be as if it was
from Labour (the one that was cleared by an election court).

Having said that, I think it is all history now. I love debating all
this stuff till the cows come home, but it is hardly relevent to the
current electoral situation.

David Stone

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

In Article <5otdbi$1...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> This is not the Guardian newspaper,
> you know. Here we LibDems can get in to fight back.

With the shining sword of truth & the trusty shield of British Fair play.
--


David Stone

unread,
Jun 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/28/97
to

In Article <5otd3q$1...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> "Focus" is the name most Liberal Democrat associations give to their locally
> produced leaflet. It is not a centrally-organised thing, and local associations
> have sole responsibility for its content. Obviously, not knowing your own local
> Liberal Democrats, and not being familiar with the literature they put out, I
> can't answer in detail questions about it.

So why have you been trying? I comment on Labour in Littleborough & Sad
because I have seen copies of the Labour pubs.

> > 30 April 1997 'John Major said, "Thanks very much for voting Labour." '
>
> > When did he say that Matthew?

> I assume the "thanks for voting Labour" quote is a paraphrase, it might be
> easier to see what is meant from context. I would guess it refers to the fact
> that Labour and the Conservatives have a vested interest in keeping the two
> party system going and thus in keeping the Liberal Democrats down, thus in
> many circumstances, the Conservatives would prefer people to vote Labour than
> Liberal Democrat, and Labour would prefer people to vote Conservative than
> Liberal Democrat. Thus, for example, the attacks on the Liberal Democrats as
> being "worse than the Conservatives" which are what this thread is all about.

The leaflet doesn't have a context and the quote is in inverted commas -
normally denoting direct speech. Either he said it or you lot genuinely
believed it at the time with the shining sword of truth and the trusty shield
of British Fair play.

> As I have said before, claims from a third placed candidate to be second placed
> are not unusual given the British party system and electoral system, I would
> imagine one could find many Labour candidates in a poor third place claiming
> to be "the main challenger to the Conservatives", so I hardly see that as
> evidence of "dirty" campaigning. As Mr.Smith put it, when people say "dirty"
> campaigning, in most people's minds that will suggest things like the use of
> racism, reference to sexuality and the like.

So lack of candour in Fuckus is okay then?

As for genuinely believing you were better placed than you were, in my
experience that is always rubbish.

> > Matthew, why do the Focuses I receive lack dates?

> As for Focuses lacking dates, they are delivered by volunteers, so it's not
> possible to put an exact date on them. A bundle will be given to a volunteer
> to deliver in a particular street, but yoiu can't say exactyly when that
> person will get out and do it.

We, who are far worse than you at any form of activity, usually put a season
and year on our's. I have difficulty finding any Focus with any indication
even of a year. It seems to be a national policy that is not co-ordinated
nationally (presumably by Aitken).

> Matthew Huntbach

Who could not manage to answer . . .

> > 27 April 1997 "The Referendum Party and Labour are fighting it out
> > for third place." Which constituency was that?

Perhaps someone could look that up.
--


M J Drew

unread,
Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97
to

David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:

: In Article <5otd3q$1...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
:
: > "Focus" is the name most Liberal Democrat associations give to their locally
: > produced leaflet. It is not a centrally-organised thing, and local associations
: > have sole responsibility for its content. Obviously, not knowing your own local
: > Liberal Democrats, and not being familiar with the literature they put out, I
: > can't answer in detail questions about it.
:
: So why have you been trying? I comment on Labour in Littleborough & Sad
: because I have seen copies of the Labour pubs.
:
: > As I have said before, claims from a third placed candidate to be second placed

: > are not unusual given the British party system and electoral system, I would
: > imagine one could find many Labour candidates in a poor third place claiming
: > to be "the main challenger to the Conservatives", so I hardly see that as
: > evidence of "dirty" campaigning. As Mr.Smith put it, when people say "dirty"
: > campaigning, in most people's minds that will suggest things like the use of
: > racism, reference to sexuality and the like.
:
: So lack of candour in Fuckus is okay then?
:

Labour in Northavon were running only Labour can beat the Tories line -
with misleading graphs showing the votes across South Gloucestershire
Unitary area which Northavon is about a third of the population. We took
the seat of the Tories with Labour in their usual bad third place.

: As for genuinely believing you were better placed than you were, in my

: experience that is always rubbish.
:
: > > Matthew, why do the Focuses I receive lack dates?
:
: > As for Focuses lacking dates, they are delivered by volunteers, so it's not
: > possible to put an exact date on them. A bundle will be given to a volunteer
: > to deliver in a particular street, but yoiu can't say exactyly when that
: > person will get out and do it.
:
: We, who are far worse than you at any form of activity, usually put a season
: and year on our's. I have difficulty finding any Focus with any indication
: even of a year. It seems to be a national policy that is not co-ordinated
: nationally (presumably by Aitken).

:

We puts dates on our Focus (in Yate) and an issue number. We have been
delivering them since 1982 to 14,000 households. Occasionally the Printer
has forgotten to change the date on the banner.

The Local Labour and Tories try on every run up to an election to start
their Labour News or In Touch but they seem to take about 3 months to get
an issue out and then they forget about it until the next election.

The Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors promote the use of Focus
newsletters through "How To" guides copying round good examples etc. There
is certainly no directive to not put on dates.


: > Matthew Huntbach


:
: Who could not manage to answer . . .
:
: > > 27 April 1997 "The Referendum Party and Labour are fighting it out
: > > for third place." Which constituency was that?
:
: Perhaps someone could look that up.
: --

:

--
Mike Drew
Northavon Constituency MPs 1 Lib Dem
S. Glos Councillors: Lab 2, Lib Dem 25, Con4
South Gloucestershire Unitary Council:Lab 31, Lib Dem 30, Con 8, Ind 1
Yate Town Council: Lab 1, Lib Dem 20

Mark Y-M

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:54:06 GMT, d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk (David Stone)
wrote thus:

>So why have you been trying? I comment on Labour in Littleborough & Sad
>because I have seen copies of the Labour pubs.

including the ones saying that Woolas was born nearby I presume -
though in fact he was born near Scunthorpe... nowhere near the
constituency...

Mark Ynys-Môn : mark@@archdruid.demon..co..uk
http://www.libdems.org.uk/people/aos/delga/index.htm
"To strangle the last King with the entrails of the last Priest"
.....allegedly the ambition of Voltaire
Opinions etc are mine and not Demon Internet's

Jonathan Jones

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

In article <5p0mo8$u...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>,

>
>Was one by the Libs another by the SDP? You may have a point, though were
>they actually stating contradictory policies, as opposed merely to making
>different emphases? I mean it is possible both for students to cause problems

I'm afraid I don't remember all the details, and as Paul has pointed out
in another reply local politics in Oxford can get pretty distorted by the
very different interests of some fairly well defined chunks of the population.
My best guess would be that the two policies were ultimately consistent
but contradictory on their surfaces. This would be pretty easy to do with
Oxford housing policy (which was the main issue at the time).

It was the stupidity of the Alliance behaviour which upset me more than the
hypocrisy, BTW.

Jonathan


Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jun 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/30/97
to

Nigel Ashton (ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>In article <5p0mo8$u...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach
><m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes
>>Jonathan Jones (jaj...@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
>>>The first election I voted in was the local election in Oxford, around 1987
>>>or so. I remember very well that the Alliance brought out two quite separate
>>>campaign leaflets, one for Central Ward (which is essentially occupied
>>>solely by students), promising support for student problems, and one for the
>>>rest of the city, which blamed most of the city's problems on students.
>>
>>>I'm not sure whether you would count this as "dirty" campaigning, but at the
>>>time I thought it was (1) hypocritical, and (2) incredibly stupid, as about
>>>50% of students lived outside central ward, and so would see both leaflets.
>>
>>Was one by the Libs another by the SDP? You may have a point, though were
>>they actually stating contradictory policies, as opposed merely to making
>>different emphases? I mean it is possible both for students to cause problems
>>and to have problems, so I don't necessarily see a contradiction here.

> Come on Matthew, you are trying too hard here.

> Can't you agree that your party (or our party if it was in 1987) makes
> mistakes sometimes.

> Your elaborate counter-criticism to every attack on your party indicates
> a degree of insecurity.

Oh, come on Nigel. You must surely have seen enough of my postings to know
that I am a "semi-detached" member of my party and am often extremely critical
of it. Why, only this weekend in Liberal Democrat News I had a letter published
criticising Ashdown's latest policy statement as "daft".

On local campaigning, I agree entirely with your point that as the party is
decentralised enough to allow local campaigners to put out more or less
whatever material they like, of course there are going to be plenty of
campaigns run in a way I wouldn't do myself, local parties who adopt policy
positions I wouldn't adopt if I lived in their place, etc.

In the above I actually said "you may have a point". I honestly didn't know,
without seeing more detail, whether he did or didn't. In the case of attacks
on LibDem "dirty campaigning" by Labour Party supporters, I've seen enough of
them, and in particular known the truth about a few of the more notorious
ones, to be extremely sceptical about Labour's claims to the point where if
Labour says "dirty Liberals(Dems)" I tend to assume that without further
independent corroboration it's the usual mud-flinging by those who can't stand
to see the two-party system challenged. If Labour has a point sometimes,
they've lost it with me on the old "cry wolf" grounds.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jul 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/4/97
to

David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:

> From which? How many? Will you ignore it if I reproduce a lot?

> HAD ENOUGH? Island FOCUS - fighting for you

> 1. Do *you* believe new homes should go to Islanders not homeless families?

> 2. Do *you* believe the Island should have an Island sons and daughters
> scheme like Liberal neighbourhoods?

> 3. Do *you* believe your Island Councillors should listen to Islanders
> and not the Commission for Racial Equality?

> THEN PLEASE LET US KNOW TODAY

Not the most sensitive way of wording it, but there is an important issue here.

Anyone who has read that classic of sociology Young and Wilmott's "Family
and Kinship in East London" will know the importance of the extended family to
East End communities. This did much to create the social cohesion that kept the
East End council estates reasonable places to live in despite the poverty.
The destruction of those links by allocation policies which have ignored
what was once considered paramount has done much to make council estates
miserable places - I see it in the estate I represent as a councillor which
once had a massive community feeling that has been lost, and some of the blame
for that can be put on insensitive allocation policies pushed through
"political correctness".

In this case, the way this issue was handled in the Isle of Dogs was wrong,
and the author of this particular leaflet was disciplined for it. What you
have reproduced here is the LibDem Focus leaflet out of the thousands of
different ones produced by different local parties in different places at
different times, which can most be accused of "pandering to racism". It is
misleading to present it as if it is "typical".

Matthew Huntbach


Henry Potts

unread,
Jul 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/4/97
to

In article <ECrAt...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone
<d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> writes
>In Article <6WgAfYAD...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts
><he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <ECEM0...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone
> > <d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> writes
> > >In Article <5oqsgv$b...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew
> > >Huntbach) wrote: [...]

> > > > So either substantiate your claims by giving us examples of your
> > > > *direct* experience of LibDem racism and homophobia,
> > >
> > >Are you asking me to quote from IOD Fuckus? Not to mention the LD
> > >published Labour News where you call yourselves Liberals. [...]
> >
> > Please do quote (fully, please).

>
>From which? How many? Will you ignore it if I reproduce a lot?
>
>HAD ENOUGH? Island FOCUS - fighting for you
>
>1. Do *you* believe new homes should go to Islanders not homeless families?
>
>2. Do *you* believe the Island should have an Island sons and daughters
> scheme like Liberal neighbourhoods?
>
>3. Do *you* believe your Island Councillors should listen to Islanders
> and not the Commission for Racial Equality?
>
>THEN PLEASE LET US KNOW TODAY
>
>*Yes*, I have Island homes for Island poeple
>
>*Yes*, I want an Island sons and daughters scheme
>
>*Yes*, I want a referendum so Islanders can decide about Island housing
>
>My Name is: .........................................................
>My Address is:.......................................................
> .......................................................
>
>WILL YOU HELP US BY GETTING SOME OF YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS TO
>JOIN OUR CAMPAIG? JUST THESE 3 WOULD BE A GREAT HELP. THANKS VERY MUCH!
>
>My Name is: .........................................................
>My Address is:.......................................................
> .......................................................
>
>
>My Name is: .........................................................
>My Address is:.......................................................
> .......................................................
>
>My Name is: .........................................................
>My Address is:.......................................................
> .......................................................
>
>Please sed this form to Jonathan Mathew, Island Liberal Focus Team,
>29 Birchfield House, Birchfield Street, E14 8EY
>
>FOCUS SAYS: "ISLAND HOMES FOR ISLAND PEOPLE"

(BTW, please include a date. That the form comes from the "Island
Liberal Focus Team" suggests that this was prior to the Liberal
Democrats -- hardly a good example of LibDem behaviour then! ;) )

And...? Where is the racism (or homophobia)? I don't say that I agree
with the Island LibDems, but is it wrong for a community to be worried
that its children aren't getting access to housing? It is wrong for a
community to want a say in local housing policy? Has Labour not
supported similar policies elsewhere/elsewhen?

A Labour councillor once accused me of being a Nazi because I pointed
out that neither she, nor her two colleagues representing the ward,
lived (or worked) in the ward. I see Labour hasn't dropped such
preposterous tactics.
--
Henry

David Boothroyd

unread,
Jul 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/4/97
to

In article <5pih5v$l...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
> David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:

Example of 'Focus' newsletter produced by Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats:

> > HAD ENOUGH? Island FOCUS - fighting for
you
>
> > 1. Do *you* believe new homes should go to Islanders not homeless
families?
>
> > 2. Do *you* believe the Island should have an Island sons and daughters
> > scheme like Liberal neighbourhoods?
>
> > 3. Do *you* believe your Island Councillors should listen to Islanders
> > and not the Commission for Racial Equality?
>
> > THEN PLEASE LET US KNOW TODAY
>

> Not the most sensitive way of wording it, but there is an important issue
> here.
>
> Anyone who has read that classic of sociology Young and Wilmott's "Family
> and Kinship in East London" will know the importance of the extended family
> to East End communities.

This goes in the Guinness Book of Records as the lamest excuse for racism
ever.

--
\/ David Boothroyd, psephologist, Libertarian socialist.De minimis non curat DB
British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
The House of Commons now: Lab 417, C 162, L Dem 46, UU 10, SNP 6, PC 4, SDLP 3,
SF 2, UDUP 2, Ind 1, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4, Vac 1 (Uxbridge). Gov't majority is 180

Mr A J Smith

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to

On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, David Boothroyd wrote:

> In article <5pih5v$l...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
> > David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
>
> Example of 'Focus' newsletter produced by Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats:
>

> > > 3. Do *you* believe your Island Councillors should listen to Islanders
> > > and not the Commission for Racial Equality?
> >

> > Not the most sensitive way of wording it, but there is an important issue
> > here.
> >
> > Anyone who has read that classic of sociology Young and Wilmott's "Family
> > and Kinship in East London" will know the importance of the extended family
> > to East End communities.
>
> This goes in the Guinness Book of Records as the lamest excuse for racism
> ever.

Now, now David, I know it looks like the most shameless, cringingly
unconvincing, pitiful, partisan excuse for inciting bigotry we've ever had
the misfortune to see on this newsgroup. However if you look more closely
you will see it was in fact a Labour smear, typical of those used by the
sinister lackeys of Millbank tower in their dishonest efforts to maintain
urban hegemony / the closed two party system.

Anyway thanks to Matthew for ensuring that nobody will ever again take
seriously a word he utters about Libdem tactics in Tower Hamlets.

David Stone

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to

> Come on Matthew, you are trying too hard here.

He's out of focus.

> Your elaborate counter-criticism to every attack on your party indicates
> a degree of insecurity.

Liberals & Labour will have to fight it out for Matthew's membership.

May the best man win (tho' I think Nigel is the more likely victor).

Matthew: you're no LD.


--


Mr A J Smith

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to

On Sat, 5 Jul 1997, David Stone wrote:

> Liberals & Labour will have to fight it out for Matthew's membership.

And the loser gets it?

Henry Potts

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to

In article <ECtKB...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone
<d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> writes
>In Article <3G9DLXA2...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts
><he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > [...] (I have also read the claims Labour put out, that the BNP was

> > doing well in a poll in a by-election, which were complete *lies*.)
>
>Who won that by-election?

The BNP scraped through in what became a three-way marginal, buoyed up
by the publicity that Labour's fictional polling had created. Labour has
since admitted that they were wrong, so your defence is rather hollow.
--
Henry

Henry Potts

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to

In article <97070423...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <5pih5v$l...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
>> David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
>
>Example of 'Focus' newsletter produced by Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats:
[...]

>> Not the most sensitive way of wording it, but there is an important issue
>> here.
>>
>> Anyone who has read that classic of sociology Young and Wilmott's "Family
>> and Kinship in East London" will know the importance of the extended family
>> to East End communities.
>
>This goes in the Guinness Book of Records as the lamest excuse for racism
>ever.

I don't feel David's post deserves a direct answer and the matter is
being debated elsewhere in this thread, so let me reply on a somewhat
tangential note. I should say that, if ever there was a Guiness Book of
Electoral Facts, I'm sure David would be the person to write it. In
fact, David, perhaps you could give us another of your wonderful lists
of electoral statistics now? This time, a list of London councillors in,
say, the last decade who have left their party giving racism in that
party as the reason. All the ones I am aware of were in the Labour
party, so that should make your task easier.
--
Henry

Mr A J Smith

unread,
Jul 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/5/97
to

On Sat, 5 Jul 1997, Henry Potts wrote:

> I don't feel David's post deserves a direct answer and the matter is
> being debated elsewhere in this thread, so let me reply on a somewhat
> tangential note. I should say that, if ever there was a Guiness Book of
> Electoral Facts, I'm sure David would be the person to write it. In
> fact, David, perhaps you could give us another of your wonderful lists
> of electoral statistics now? This time, a list of London councillors in,
> say, the last decade who have left their party giving racism in that
> party as the reason. All the ones I am aware of were in the Labour
> party, so that should make your task easier.

And perhaps David might follow it up with a list of people who have sent
posts to this newsgroup denying that racism had happened where it
obviously had, using it as an excuse to ignore any criticism of their
party's campaigning methods, and repeatedly calling someone a liar for the
crime of mentioning that it had happened. He could then write a list of
people who desperately tried to change the subject after having been
caught out. All the ones I'm aware of have been in the Liberal Democrat
Party, so that should make his task easier.

David Stone

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to

In Article <5pih5v$l...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
>
> > From which? How many? Will you ignore it if I reproduce a lot?

Any chance of answers?

> > HAD ENOUGH? Island FOCUS - fighting for you

> > 3. Do *you* believe your Island Councillors should listen to Islanders


> > and not the Commission for Racial Equality?

> Not the most sensitive way of wording it, but there is an important issue here.


>
> Anyone who has read that classic of sociology Young and Wilmott's "Family
> and Kinship in East London" will know the importance of the extended family to

> East End communities. This did much to create the social cohesion that kept the
> East End council estates reasonable places to live in despite the poverty.
> The destruction of those links by allocation policies which have ignored
> what was once considered paramount has done much to make council estates
> miserable places - I see it in the estate I represent as a councillor which
> once had a massive community feeling that has been lost, and some of the blame
> for that can be put on insensitive allocation policies pushed through
> "political correctness".

ISTR Monty Python put it like this, "Kipling Road was a typical East End street.
People were in and out of each other's houses, with each other's property,
all day long." Like Matthew's excuse, above, it was a paradody of truth.
Matthew might just as continue and claim IOD is majority jew - if it were
not for the fact that CRE do not like anti-semitism either.

Matthew seems to have noticed that in writing the weak excuses above, he cuts
himself from his own root. Matthew, one may recall, considers himself to be
a Liberal. This is the party that fought hardest against racism but merger
expediency, and electoral convenience, dictate an about turn. You don't
believe that rubbish anymore than I do, Matthew.

Above all, I think, Matthew forgets that many native east enders are racial
minority asians. These the Commission *Racial* Equality seeks to protect.
In their 1979 manifesto, The Real Fight is for Britain, the Liberal Party
said they reveled in racial diversity. Wherever that tolerance may be,
Matthew, it is certainly not in today's LDs and it is time for you to leave.

> In this case, the way this issue was handled in the Isle of Dogs was wrong,
> and the author of this particular leaflet was disciplined for it. What you
> have reproduced here is the LibDem Focus leaflet out of the thousands of
> different ones produced by different local parties in different places at
> different times, which can most be accused of "pandering to racism". It is
> misleading to present it as if it is "typical".

It was not the worst, the best or even typical. The reason I chose it was
it was easy to reproduce. LDs tend to manage Foci centrally nowadays. They
tend to be hard hitting and often cross the line from misleading to dishonest.

Word reaches uk.p.e's out of focus team that some London LDs are trying to
embarass Labour because one of our councillors suggested making the registry
office available to gays. Would this be the same LD cllrs group who are led
by a homosexual who has himself benefited from a similar arrangement? Sources
close indicate it is.

It is not good enought to say IOD, wherever, were exceptional because this sort
of thing is happening all the time. I believe every 2nd to Tory placed LD
candidate this year sent a Focus claiming Labour was fighting it out with
the Marmite Army for 3rd place. AFAIK, that was not true anywhere. Then
Henry complains Labour said BNP were going to win an election they did win
and that was a lie.

Since every Focus is the responsibility of the local party, it will always be
possible to claim exceptionality. You can always have a go at us for claiming
you are soft on drugs, even though you are soft on drugs, or claiming you
want higher taxes, even though you want higher taxes. You can complain we
said Chris Davies is a former Liverpool cllr, even though he is a former
Liverpool cllr.

None of this cuts any ice. When I travel, I see LD publications. I know your
party is dirty, Andy and DB know it, and so do you. It is time for Matthew
to leave the LDs.

Had enough?
--


Henry Potts

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to

In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970706130345.7444B-100000@lupin>, Mr A J Smith
<ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes

>On Sat, 5 Jul 1997, Henry Potts wrote:
>> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes
>> >On Sat, 5 Jul 1997, Henry Potts wrote:
>> >> [...] David, perhaps you could give us another of your wonderful

>> >> lists of electoral statistics now? This time, a list of London
>> >> councillors in, say, the last decade who have left their party
>> >> giving racism in that party as the reason. All the ones I am aware
>> >> of were in the Labour party, so that should make your task easier.
>> >
>> >And perhaps David might follow it up with a list of people who have sent
>> >posts to this newsgroup denying that racism had happened where it
>> >obviously had, using it as an excuse to ignore any criticism of their
>> >party's campaigning methods, and repeatedly calling someone a liar for the
>> >crime of mentioning that it had happened.
>>
>> And I thought you were going to bring Tower Hamlets up again, but as a
>> number of Liberal Democrats on this newsgroup have agreed that things
>> were done wrong there and broadly support the actions of the Liberal
>> Democrat inquiry that expelled a number of party members as a result,
>> you must be referring to somewhere else.

I wasn't taking this subthread too seriously -- humorous namecalling
that it was -- but it seems a resumption of normal levels of pedantry is
required, so...

>And a number have said that while they themselves wouldn't have put out
>those leaflets they don't think they were racist.

I (personally) do not believe that the leaflet in question was motivated
by a racist viewpoint, but that it was appealing to "localism", which --
particularly in somewhere like Tower Hamlets -- can get uncomfortably
close to racism. I think it was right that there was an inquiry
afterwards by the party and I broadly support the conclusions and
actions of the party. This viewpoint seems to be shared by a number of
other LibDems I know. (The boxer picture supposedly being a mugger, I
find just preposterous.)

Your complaint that racism "obviously had" happened is wrong. If it was
"obvious", we wouldn't be arguing over it by the very definition of
"obvious"! You complain that criticism of LibDem campaigning mechanisms
is ignored, which is clearly wrong given that a party inquiry took place
in response to criticisms.

>And Matthew Huntbach has gone on and on about how accusations of racism
>were all a Labour smear, repeatedly calling me a liar in the process.

Only a fool would deny that Labour made political capital out of the
allegations. Otherwise, as Matthew's complaint was more complex than you
make out here and as I obviously cannot speak for him, I'll leave that
issue to elsewhere.

>> >He could then write a list of people who desperately tried to change
>> >the subject after having been caught out.
>>

>> Now, Andrew, would you like to comment on the fact that several Labour
>> councillors in London have left the party complaining of racism?
>
>If they are telling the truth then I condemn the racism utterly. I don't
>deny that there are probably racists still in the Labour Party, but if
>I ever encountered any of them I would want them out of the party and I
>would, unlike our Liberal Democrat friends, *never* make excuses for
>racist campaigning.

... but you do go on and on and on about a single incident many years
ago in Tower Hamlets, yet show no interest in discovering what has
happened in your own party. Various Liberal Democrat supporters on this
newsgroup have said the same thing -- that racism crops up in *every*
party and that we should always attempt to deal with it -- but you and
Dave Stone still go on repetitively about certain incidents concerning
the Liberal Democrats with no apparent interest in dealing with your own
party's problems.

There are lessons to be learnt from Tower Hamlets (and I hope we've
learnt most of them). We could discuss these if you and others accepted
that every slur made is not true and that there is more going on than
your jaundiced eyes are ready to see.

And when us LibDems suggest that our critics should also consider the
beam in their own eye, we are told that we are making excuses for
racism. I would hope that all members of political parties could work
together in tackling racism, but it is attitudes like yours -- of using
the slightest possibility that racism might have occurred as a stick to
bash the Liberal Democrats, with no desire to listen to any explanation
or background -- that does most damage to the process and, I suspect,
annoys Matthew so. I note that the LibDem enquiry in Tower Hamlets
invited the Labour party to take part too, but Labour refused.

I also find a certain lack of perspective in your posts. Returning to
homophobia, I find it bizarre that LibDems should be attacked for
alleged homophobic campaigning in Southwark & Bermondsey -- where
serious commentators recognise that most of the allegations actually
stem from behaviour by other groups -- by members of a party where one
fifth of their then MPs voted against an equal age of consent. So, 20%
of your MPs being openly homophobic and supporting discriminatory
legislation is dismissed, but dubious allegations about one campaign
many, many years ago is brought up repeatedly... why? Which actually
matters more?

>> I can't seem to remember you addressing the point before.
>
>Probably because I know absolutely nothing about the incident in question.

If you are so concerned about racism, perhaps you should find out more
about what happens in your own party. I suspect you are more concerned
with attacking the LibDems.

>> I will happily go on
>> discussing the Liberal Democrats in Tower Hamlets to the best of my
>> abilities, but I thought a new topic of conversation might be less dull.
>
>...and less inconvenient.

Quite the opposite: a lot more inconvenient... for you! :)

>> >All the ones I'm aware of have been in the Liberal Democrat
>> >Party, so that should make his task easier.
>>

>> Sorry, I can think of plenty of cases by Labour party members too.
>
>Okay prove it, find a post from a Labour Party member defending racist
>campaigning.
>
>I'll be waiting.

Would a post showing no interest in racism in the Labour party do, like
yours above? Or what about a post defending homophobia in Labour, as a
number have been made?
--
Henry

TMoore9401

unread,
Jul 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/6/97
to

In article <4lHwjFAR...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts
<he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> writes:

>Subject: Re: LD performance
>From: Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 14:24:33 +0100


>
>In article <ECtKB...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone
><d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> writes
>>In Article <3G9DLXA2...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts
>><he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > [...] (I have also read the claims Labour put out, that the BNP was
>> > doing well in a poll in a by-election, which were complete *lies*.)
>>
>>Who won that by-election?
>
>The BNP scraped through in what became a three-way marginal, buoyed up
>by the publicity that Labour's fictional polling had created.

Let me get this straight. If the Liberal Democrats claim they are going
to win, when in fact they come no where close to wining, that is because
your private polling was genuinely mistaken (agen).

If Labour says BNP will win, in a ward the BNP subsequently win, you are
claiming that was a pack of lies?

Prediction (true) = lie
Prediction (false) = true


>Labour has since admitted that they were wrong, so your defence is rather
hollow.

I bet Henry can't find a reference for that.

I wouldn't wipe my dog's arse with Focus.

He must be the luckiest dog alive.

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

Henry Potts (he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <97070423...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
> <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <5pih5v$l...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
> >> David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
> >
> >Example of 'Focus' newsletter produced by Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats:
> [...]
> >> Not the most sensitive way of wording it, but there is an important issue
> >> here.
> >>
> >> Anyone who has read that classic of sociology Young and Wilmott's "Family
> >> and Kinship in East London" will know the importance of the extended family
> >> to East End communities.
> >
> >This goes in the Guinness Book of Records as the lamest excuse for racism
> >ever.

> I don't feel David's post deserves a direct answer and the matter is


> being debated elsewhere in this thread,

I haven't seen the particular issue of "Focus" that was quoted here, and I
agree that the wording as quoted goes further than is acceptable. I said this
in the bit of my article that has been cut, agreeing it was right that
Jonathan Matthew should have been displined for circulating this stuff.

There is still a point about housing policy though. If you just dismiss the
real feelings for the extended family that do exist amongst East End culture,
and show no interest at all in what those people think, should you be surprised
they move towards the BNP?

There's something sickening about nice white middle class people who see
nothing wrong in leaving their homes in their wills to their nice white
middle class children preaching down to working class tenants about how
dreadful they are to be concerned about local homes for their own children.

If all of you leave your own houses in your will "to the homeless" or
persuade your parents to cut you out of their will in favour of the
homeless, I shall listen with a bit more respect to your criticisms of the
selfishness of the working class.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Henry Potts wrote:

> > ... but you do go on and on and on about a single incident many years
> > ago in Tower Hamlets,

> IIRC I only mentioned it at all because a Libdem didn't understand what
> was meant by dirty campaigning, and I only referred back to it because
> there were Libdem posters claiming it never happened.

The original claim was that Liberal Democrats *in general* campaigned in a
dirty manner, and that this was something you had experienced *directly*.
When asked what you meant by "dirty" you replied you meant racist and
homophobic. You were unable to substantiate this with any personal
experience however. In fact I do not think that anywhere in this thread you
have managed to give us direct personal experience of Liberal Democrat "dirty"
campaigning. You have eventually been able to dig up ONE leaflet from ONE
borough which I am willing to agree pandered to racism. I do not believe this
is a borough where you have campaigned yourself. So we are still waiting for
you to prove you are not a liar by giving us your examples of DIRECT
experience of Liberal Democrat "dirty" campaigning you claim to have
experienced.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
> In Article <5pih5v$l...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
> > Anyone who has read that classic of sociology Young and Wilmott's "Family
> > and Kinship in East London" will know the importance of the extended family
> > to East End communities.

> ISTR Monty Python put it like this, "Kipling Road was a typical East End

> street. People were in and out of each other's houses, with each other's
> property, all day long." Like Matthew's excuse, above, it was a paradody of
> truth.

Young and Wilmott is one of the most respected pieces of work in sociology,
and ceratinly emphasises the importance of family ties. This is something I
know about myself through having been brought up on a council estate, and
through representing one of London's largest council estates as a councillor.

> Matthew seems to have noticed that in writing the weak excuses above, he cuts
> himself from his own root. Matthew, one may recall, considers himself to be
> a Liberal. This is the party that fought hardest against racism but merger
> expediency, and electoral convenience, dictate an about turn. You don't
> believe that rubbish anymore than I do, Matthew.

Where am I saying anything that is racist? Simply because I am trying to look
carefully at an issue, inclduing understanding why white East Enders may feel
upset about changes that have happened in their lifetime does not make me
a racist.

> > In this case, the way this issue was handled in the Isle of Dogs was wrong,
> > and the author of this particular leaflet was disciplined for it. What you
> > have reproduced here is the LibDem Focus leaflet out of the thousands of
> > different ones produced by different local parties in different places at
> > different times, which can most be accused of "pandering to racism". It is
> > misleading to present it as if it is "typical".

> It was not the worst, the best or even typical. The reason I chose it was
> it was easy to reproduce. LDs tend to manage Foci centrally nowadays. They
> tend to be hard hitting and often cross the line from misleading to dishonest.

If this Focus was not the worst example of racism you know of, please give
some more examples. As I have said, while I understand the issues being
raised, I agree it was raised wrongly in this Focus, in a way that was
insensitive and did pander to racism.

> Word reaches uk.p.e's out of focus team that some London LDs are trying to
> embarass Labour because one of our councillors suggested making the registry
> office available to gays. Would this be the same LD cllrs group who are led
> by a homosexual who has himself benefited from a similar arrangement? Sources
> close indicate it is.

Please give names and places.

> It is not good enought to say IOD, wherever, were exceptional because this
> sort of thing is happening all the time. I believe every 2nd to Tory placed
> LD candidate this year sent a Focus claiming Labour was fighting it out with
> the Marmite Army for 3rd place. AFAIK, that was not true anywhere.

It certainly was in Lewes where I spent part of the general election
campaign. The Referendum Party was strong and well-organised there, and was
getting significant support in canvass returns (it beat Labour in mine).

Matthew Huntbach

I.K. Ridley

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

In article <19970706181...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

TMoore9401 <tmoor...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4lHwjFAR...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts
><he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>In article <ECtKB...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone
>><d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> writes
>>>In Article <3G9DLXA2...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts
>>><he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> > [...] (I have also read the claims Labour put out, that the BNP was
>>> > doing well in a poll in a by-election, which were complete *lies*.)

>>>Who won that by-election?

>>The BNP scraped through in what became a three-way marginal, buoyed up
>>by the publicity that Labour's fictional polling had created.

>Let me get this straight. If the Liberal Democrats claim they are going
>to win, when in fact they come no where close to wining, that is because
>your private polling was genuinely mistaken (agen).

>If Labour says BNP will win, in a ward the BNP subsequently win, you are
>claiming that was a pack of lies?

I believe that Labour were trying to stop people voting by Liberal Democrat by
exagerating the BNP support. The thinking behind this was that people would not
want to see the BNP elected and would be scared into voting Labour.

This tactic backfired as the Labour "polling" gave the BNP the appearence of
being well supported and having a chance of winning. A osrt of self-fulfulling
prophecy on Labour's part you might say.

Ian Ridley
"Given its refusal to raise tax, voting Labour was a way for the wealthy to
to protect their self-interest and salve their consciences at once", Mark
Smulian, June 1997. Views expressed are not neccessarily those of Leicester
University, Leicester University Liberal Democrat Students:
http://www.le.ac.uk/CWIS/SU/SO/LDSOC/ldsoc.html or the Liberal Democrats:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/

I.K. Ridley

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to
>In article <UcIrdiAsJNvzEw$9...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts
><he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> writes:

>>A Labour councillor once accused me of being a Nazi

>He was right.

The reasoned debate of Tom Moore makes a reappearence. What a breath of fresh
air.

Ian Ridley

Duncan Keith

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

In article <ECHL6...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk (David
Stone) wrote:

> Who could not manage to answer . . .
>
> > > 27 April 1997 "The Referendum Party and Labour are fighting it out
> > > for third place." Which constituency was that?
>
> Perhaps someone could look that up.
> --

I recognise this quote - because I wrote the it!

It was Orpington. Labour came third, Referendum fourth as it happens. So I
presume none of the self righteous, dirty tricks, Labour bleaters out
there have got anything to whinge about - seeing it was true.

Labour's campaign centred on stopping us from winning - which they just
managed to do. The Labour candidate said in her speech that she was
pleased to have prevented us from beating her conservative friends.

Duncan Borrowman
Chair, Orpington Liberal Democrats

Agent/Organiser Orpington Oct 1986 - June 1997

Henry Potts

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970706200045.18636A-100000@lupin>, Mr A J
Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes

>On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Henry Potts wrote:
>> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970706130345.7444B-100000@lupin>, Mr A J Smith
>> <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes
[etc.]

>> >And a number have said that while they themselves wouldn't have put out
>> >those leaflets they don't think they were racist.
>>
>> I (personally) do not believe that the leaflet in question was motivated
>> by a racist viewpoint, but that it was appealing to "localism", which --
>> particularly in somewhere like Tower Hamlets -- can get uncomfortably
>> close to racism.
>

>It wasn't the Commission for *Local* Equality that they were promising to
>ignore.

The latest issue of "Private Eye", in its Rotten Boroughs section, has a
short piece criticising a racial equality unit. I don't believe this
demonstrates that "Private Eye" is racist. The Commission for Racial
Equality is not perfect. The CRE is sometimes due criticism. That one
should criticise the CRE does not make one's actions racist. Away from
the specifics of the case in question, I hope you can agree with this
paragraph.

>> I think it was right that there was an inquiry
>> afterwards by the party and I broadly support the conclusions and
>> actions of the party. This viewpoint seems to be shared by a number of
>> other LibDems I know. (The boxer picture supposedly being a mugger, I
>> find just preposterous.)
>

>Well if you can find any pictures of a big black man about to hit somebody
>on a leaflet that isn't about crime then I might believe that.

Racial tension in Tower Hamlets is between 'whites' and people of a
south Asian origin. If you're going to pander to racism here, you don't
use pictures of black men. The picture is clearly of a boxer. Not many
boxers go in for muggings on the side. The picture hasn't been used
since because Labour used it as an example of alleged racism.

>> Your complaint that racism "obviously had" happened is wrong. If it was
>> "obvious", we wouldn't be arguing over it by the very definition of
>> "obvious"!
>

>Rubbish. Many discussions on politics newsgroups involve people disputing
>the obvious.

Given that cries of "obvious" aren't going to get us anywhere, you could
support your argument -- which should be easy if it's so obvious! --
rather than just baldly claiming it is so obvious. It would help raise
the rapidly plummeting level of debate, of which we are all guilty.

>> You complain that criticism of LibDem campaigning mechanisms
>> is ignored,
>

>When did I say that?

To quote: "perhaps David might follow it up with a list of people who


have sent posts to this newsgroup denying that racism had happened where
it obviously had, using it as an excuse to ignore any criticism of their
party's campaigning methods, and repeatedly calling someone a liar for
the crime of mentioning that it had happened."

>> >> >He could then write a list of people who desperately tried to change


>> >> >the subject after having been caught out.
>> >>
>> >> Now, Andrew, would you like to comment on the fact that several Labour
>> >> councillors in London have left the party complaining of racism?
>> >
>> >If they are telling the truth then I condemn the racism utterly. I don't
>> >deny that there are probably racists still in the Labour Party, but if
>> >I ever encountered any of them I would want them out of the party and I
>> >would, unlike our Liberal Democrat friends, *never* make excuses for
>> >racist campaigning.
>>
>> ... but you do go on and on and on about a single incident many years
>> ago in Tower Hamlets,
>

>IIRC I only mentioned it at all because a Libdem didn't understand what
>was meant by dirty campaigning, and I only referred back to it because
>there were Libdem posters claiming it never happened.

They claimed that Labour had distorted what had happened. That is not
the same thing at all.

You also used the Tower Hamlets event as a typical example of LibDem
behaviour to support your earlier claims of widespread 'dirty
campaigning', yet I find your case lacking in any other substantive
examples.

>> yet show no interest in discovering what has
>> happened in your own party. Various Liberal Democrat supporters on this
>> newsgroup have said the same thing -- that racism crops up in *every*
>> party and that we should always attempt to deal with it -- but you and
>> Dave Stone still go on repetitively about certain incidents concerning
>> the Liberal Democrats with no apparent interest in dealing with your own
>> party's problems.
>

>I can't do anything about what happens in the Labour Party in an
>unnamed co[n]stituency in London. [...]
^^^^^^^
(As far as I remember, they came from a number of different London
boroughs. Sorry -- can't remember the details. I'd hoped someone could
provide some.)

>> I would hope that all members of political parties could work
>> together in tackling racism, but it is attitudes like yours -- of using
>> the slightest possibility that racism might have occurred as a stick to
>> bash the Liberal Democrats, with no desire to listen to any explanation
>> or background
>

>I'm quite willing to listen, but so far all I've heard is excuses that
>only an imbecile would believe,

Your mileage may vary.

>efforts to change the subject to other people's behaviour[...]

As far as I remember -- and apologies if I haven't done so accurately
enough -- you originally claimed that the Liberal Democrats routinely
used 'dirty campaigning' and did so more than occurred in other parties.
"[O]ther people's behaviour" is relevant to the latter part of that
claim. If we can demonstrate that Labour routinely makes false
accusations of dirty campaigning -- a type of dirty campaigning itself
(if true) -- that is also clearly relevant.

>> I also find a certain lack of perspective in your posts. Returning to
>> homophobia, I find it bizarre that LibDems should be attacked for
>> alleged homophobic campaigning in Southwark & Bermondsey -- where
>> serious commentators recognise that most of the allegations actually
>> stem from behaviour by other groups -- by members of a party where one
>> fifth of their then MPs voted against an equal age of consent. So, 20%
>> of your MPs being openly homophobic and supporting discriminatory
>> legislation is dismissed, but dubious allegations about one campaign
>> many, many years ago is brought up repeatedly... why? Which actually
>> matters more?
>

>I find it bizarre that in a discussion of dirty campaigning by the
>LibDems,

(I prefer to see it as a discussion of dirty campaigning by all
parties...)

>made on a newsgroup about elections, you want to change the
>subject to questions of policy and parliamentary votes.

I take your point that this is somewhat of a shift in emphasis, but I
don't believe the issues are wholly separable. Campaigning is ultimately
based on "policy and parliamentary votes"! Voting in the Commons is
about the most public way an MP can make clear their views. Any MP who
stood in the subsequent general election had made their views clear
through voting (and both sides of the age of consent case paid attention
to how MPs voted and publicised the information). An MP's voting record
is a de facto part of their campaign. These MPs publicised their
homophobic attitude and sought re-election on the basis of their past
work in the job, which included voting for homophobic legislation.

I know Labour has been accused of not campaigning on policy, but this is
ridiculous! ;)

If I may ask leave of the newsgroup to repeat a question not directly
related to elections or electoral mechanics, which actually matters more
(that 20% of Labour MPs -- as well as MPs of a number of other parties
-- voted against an equal age of consent or uncertain allegations about
Liberal campaigning in the Southwark & Bermondsey Parliamentary by-
election)?

>> >> I can't seem to remember you addressing the point before.
>> >
>> >Probably because I know absolutely nothing about the incident in question.
>>
>> If you are so concerned about racism, perhaps you should find out more
>> about what happens in your own party. I suspect you are more concerned
>> with attacking the LibDems.
>

>I am a regular on these newsgroups. I have no connections to the London
>Labour Party. It's fairly obvious where my attentions are going to be.

Yet, do you not accuse Liberal Democrat regulars to this newsgroup of
defending their party instead of tackling dirty campaigning?

>> >> >All the ones I'm aware of have been in the Liberal Democrat
>> >> >Party, so that should make his task easier.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I can think of plenty of cases by Labour party members too.
>> >
>> >Okay prove it, find a post from a Labour Party member defending racist
>> >campaigning.
>> >
>> >I'll be waiting.
>>
>> Would a post showing no interest in racism in the Labour party do, like
>> yours above?
>

>Strangely enough a post to uk.politics.*electoral* in which I say I don't
>know anything about an incident of alleged racism in a constituency I have
>no connections to, is hardly the same as defending racist campaigning.

Indeed, they aren't the same, but what is any party member to do in
reaction to (alleged) racism in their party? Sit back and argue about
what another party is doing on uk.p.e. or show some concern? If all the
LibDems on this group said "Oh, we're not in Tower Hamlets and don't
know anything about it, so let's talk about how crap Labour is,"
wouldn't you complain?

I believe the party I support has a better record on tackling racism
than yours. I think that context explains why I am unimpressed by your
party's allegations.

I note you snipped my question about posts defending Labour's
homophobia.
--
Henry

Mr A J Smith

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Henry Potts wrote:

> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes
> >On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Henry Potts wrote:
> >> >And a number have said that while they themselves wouldn't have put out
> >> >those leaflets they don't think they were racist.
> >>
> >> I (personally) do not believe that the leaflet in question was motivated
> >> by a racist viewpoint, but that it was appealing to "localism", which --
> >> particularly in somewhere like Tower Hamlets -- can get uncomfortably
> >> close to racism.
> >
> >It wasn't the Commission for *Local* Equality that they were promising to
> >ignore.
>
> The latest issue of "Private Eye", in its Rotten Boroughs section, has a
> short piece criticising a racial equality unit. I don't believe this
> demonstrates that "Private Eye" is racist. The Commission for Racial
> Equality is not perfect. The CRE is sometimes due criticism. That one
> should criticise the CRE does not make one's actions racist. Away from
> the specifics of the case in question, I hope you can agree with this
> paragraph.

I agree with your paragraph. I just don't think it any way justifies the
Libdem leaflet. Criticising the CRE is one thing, highlighting it as an
enemy of your policies is another.



> >> I think it was right that there was an inquiry
> >> afterwards by the party and I broadly support the conclusions and
> >> actions of the party. This viewpoint seems to be shared by a number of
> >> other LibDems I know. (The boxer picture supposedly being a mugger, I
> >> find just preposterous.)
> >
> >Well if you can find any pictures of a big black man about to hit somebody
> >on a leaflet that isn't about crime then I might believe that.
>
> Racial tension in Tower Hamlets is between 'whites' and people of a
> south Asian origin. If you're going to pander to racism here, you don't
> use pictures of black men. The picture is clearly of a boxer. Not many
> boxers go in for muggings on the side.

Then why was it on a leaflet about crime, rather than one about boxing?

> >> Your complaint that racism "obviously had" happened is wrong. If it was
> >> "obvious", we wouldn't be arguing over it by the very definition of
> >> "obvious"!
> >
> >Rubbish. Many discussions on politics newsgroups involve people disputing
> >the obvious.
>
> Given that cries of "obvious" aren't going to get us anywhere, you could
> support your argument

I have.

> >> >> >He could then write a list of people who desperately tried to change
> >> >> >the subject after having been caught out.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, Andrew, would you like to comment on the fact that several Labour
> >> >> councillors in London have left the party complaining of racism?
> >> >
> >> >If they are telling the truth then I condemn the racism utterly. I don't
> >> >deny that there are probably racists still in the Labour Party, but if
> >> >I ever encountered any of them I would want them out of the party and I
> >> >would, unlike our Liberal Democrat friends, *never* make excuses for
> >> >racist campaigning.
> >>
> >> ... but you do go on and on and on about a single incident many years
> >> ago in Tower Hamlets,
> >
> >IIRC I only mentioned it at all because a Libdem didn't understand what
> >was meant by dirty campaigning, and I only referred back to it because
> >there were Libdem posters claiming it never happened.
>
> They claimed that Labour had distorted what had happened. That is not
> the same thing at all.

Matthew was certainly saying that he didn't think that they'd been racist.
Someone else made a comment about how if what they'd heard was true then
it wasn't racist.



> You also used the Tower Hamlets event as a typical example of LibDem
> behaviour to support your earlier claims of widespread 'dirty
> campaigning', yet I find your case lacking in any other substantive
> examples.

To be fair the reason I think the LibDems are dirty campaigners are
because of *all* of the following a) The most famous examples of dirty
campaigning I know of have involved the LibDems, b) I've come across
dishonest or dirty campaigning by Libdems in both the costituencies I've
campaigned in, and c) Labour activists from elsewhere in the country
(including those on this newsgroup) seem to have formed a similar opinion,
and I don't believe that this can be down to conspiracy or coincidence.



> >I'm quite willing to listen, but so far all I've heard is excuses that
> >only an imbecile would believe,
>
> Your mileage may vary.
>
> >efforts to change the subject to other people's behaviour[...]
>
> As far as I remember -- and apologies if I haven't done so accurately
> enough -- you originally claimed that the Liberal Democrats routinely
> used 'dirty campaigning' and did so more than occurred in other parties.
> "[O]ther people's behaviour" is relevant to the latter part of that
> claim.

How Labour MPs have voted on such and such an issue, or how their have
been claims of racism *within* such and such a local party, most
definitely aren't relevant to this.

> If I may ask leave of the newsgroup to repeat a question not directly
> related to elections or electoral mechanics, which actually matters more
> (that 20% of Labour MPs -- as well as MPs of a number of other parties
> -- voted against an equal age of consent or uncertain allegations about
> Liberal campaigning in the Southwark & Bermondsey Parliamentary by-
> election)?

With respect to what?

With regards to the issue of dirty campaigning, the latter.

With regards to the political issue of the age of consent, the former,
though if you really want to start that argument I have to point out that
I don't accept comparisons of how percentages of MPs vote, because it is
far easier to achieve unanimity if you only have a couple of dozen MPs
than if you have hundreds, and because what can really make a difference
to people is the absolute rather than the proportionate number of MPs
supporting the view.

> >> >> I can't seem to remember you addressing the point before.
> >> >
> >> >Probably because I know absolutely nothing about the incident in question.
> >>
> >> If you are so concerned about racism, perhaps you should find out more
> >> about what happens in your own party. I suspect you are more concerned
> >> with attacking the LibDems.
> >
> >I am a regular on these newsgroups. I have no connections to the London
> >Labour Party. It's fairly obvious where my attentions are going to be.
>
> Yet, do you not accuse Liberal Democrat regulars to this newsgroup of
> defending their party instead of tackling dirty campaigning?

I accuse them of defending their party.

> >> >> >All the ones I'm aware of have been in the Liberal Democrat
> >> >> >Party, so that should make his task easier.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry, I can think of plenty of cases by Labour party members too.
> >> >
> >> >Okay prove it, find a post from a Labour Party member defending racist
> >> >campaigning.
> >> >
> >> >I'll be waiting.
> >>
> >> Would a post showing no interest in racism in the Labour party do, like
> >> yours above?
> >
> >Strangely enough a post to uk.politics.*electoral* in which I say I don't
> >know anything about an incident of alleged racism in a constituency I have
> >no connections to, is hardly the same as defending racist campaigning.
>
> Indeed, they aren't the same, but what is any party member to do in
> reaction to (alleged) racism in their party?

Not defend the racism.

> I note you snipped my question about posts defending Labour's
> homophobia.

Okay if you have the posts, go ahead and tell us about them.

Henry Potts

unread,
Jul 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/7/97
to

In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970707121922.535D-100000@lupin>, Mr A J Smith
<ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes
>On 7 Jul 1997, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote: [...]
>> > I only mentioned it [alleged racist campaigning in Tower Hamlets]

>> > at all because a Libdem didn't understand what was meant by dirty
>> > campaigning, and I only referred back to it because there were
>> > Libdem posters claiming it never happened.
>>
>> The original claim was that Liberal Democrats *in general* campaigned in a
>> dirty manner, and that this was something you had experienced *directly*.
>> When asked what you meant by "dirty" you replied you meant racist and
>> homophobic.
>
>No I didn't.

You did use those as *examples* of 'dirty campaigning' AFAIR, so your
ability to provide (or not) cases of such is of some note.

>> You were unable to substantiate this with any personal
>> experience however.
>

>Probably because I never said it.

Why use alleged racist campaigning as an example of your experience of
dirty campaigning if you've never experienced it? It perhaps would have
made for a more straightforward thread if you had stuck to the specific
examples from your experience that you mention again below.

>[...] when you said that the innocence of the LibDems in Tower Hamlets
justified disregarding all comments about LibDem dirty campaigning you
>were wrong.
>
>Going to apologise?

I don't believe Matthew said that. I fear you have misinterpreted him if
that is how you remember it.

>> I do not believe this [Tower Hamlets]


>> is a borough where you have campaigned yourself. So we are still waiting for
>> you to prove you are not a liar by giving us your examples of DIRECT
>> experience of Liberal Democrat "dirty" campaigning you claim to have
>> experienced.
>

>Right, well I personally campaigned in a constituency where the LibDem
>candidate contacted the local paper to tell them that the Labour
>candidate was a single mother.

You mentioned this (and your second example below) before, but debate
about them rather dried up. If I too might repeat myself, can you tell
us more details? Telling a journalist something that is common knowledge
does not instantly strike me as an example of dirty campaigning. You
claim now (which you didn't mention before, IIRC) that the LibDem
candidate *contacted* the journalist in order to impart this piece of
information. That makes for an audacious claim: can you prove it? What
evidence do you have, in general, for that matter? Have you spoken to
the journalist or LibDem candidate about the matter? I can imagine
numerous scenarios whereby a piece of autobiographical data about an
opponent candidate could have come up in a conversation between
journalist and candidate for wholly innocent reasons. I require a bit
more background before I'm going to believe any malice was involved.

>I personally campaigned in a
>constituency where the LibDems put out leaflets attacking Labour for a
>policy that the Libdems actually agree with.

Again, some more details would be useful. I can see how a LibDem leaflet
attacking, say, a detail of the implementation of a Labour policy, where
we too support the broad concept of the policy, could be misinterpreted.
Can you quote the supposed offending passage?

I think it is obvious (oh no, that word!) that you cannot simply make
allegations of this nature and expect to be universally believed without
more details. I do not believe that a request for more detail is
unreasonable.
--
Henry

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Mr A J Smith (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:

> To be fair the reason I think the LibDems are dirty campaigners are
> because of *all* of the following a) The most famous examples of dirty
> campaigning I know of have involved the LibDems, b) I've come across
> dishonest or dirty campaigning by Libdems in both the costituencies I've
> campaigned in, and c) Labour activists from elsewhere in the country
> (including those on this newsgroup) seem to have formed a similar opinion,
> and I don't believe that this can be down to conspiracy or coincidence.
>

In other words, the Labour Party has an organised campaign to brand the
Liberal Democrats as "dirty campaigners". This involves looking for racism
and claiming it was there when none was intended, taking isolated remarks
and leaflets out of context and claiming what was done there is general
amongst LibDems, claiming LibDems are responsible for things done by others,
carrying on telling lies even when they have been disproved etc.

Matthew Huntbach

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Duncan Keith wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970705004710.19595A-100000@lupin>,

> ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr A J Smith) wrote:
>
> > Libdem tactics in Tower Hamlets.
>
> The words pot calling the kettle black come to mind! (possible racist pun

Don't LibDem computer officers mysteriously find their computers stolen
the day before by-elections in Tower Hamlets - or is that in Lambeth?

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

David Boothroyd wrote:
>
> In article <5pih5v$l...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
> > David Stone (d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:

> > Not the most sensitive way of wording it, but there is an important issue
> > here.
> >

> > Anyone who has read that classic of sociology Young and Wilmott's "Family
> > and Kinship in East London" will know the importance of the extended family
> > to East End communities.
>

> This goes in the Guinness Book of Records as the lamest excuse for racism
> ever.

I once heard a Liverpool Labour Councillor took a South Liverpool LibDem
leaflet to the CRE. It had talked about homes for local people and jobs
for local people.

According to Labour, despite the fact that the area has had a
significant black population for over 200 years, the black community in
South Liverpool isn't 'local'.

Political correctness taken to such an extreme that it becomes racism or
just plain cheap political point scoring - you decide!

Gerry Lynch

'Visit the New Lodge Road - such a beautiful place you can't leave (or
enter) it - after 8pm due to burning vehicles'

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jul 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/8/97
to

Mr A J Smith wrote:

> caught out. All the ones I'm aware of have been in the Liberal Democrat


> Party, so that should make his task easier.
>

There is no such thing as the Liberal Democrat Party - we are the
Liberal Democrats.

Gerry Lynch

'Live in the New Lodge and come home to a REAL fire'

I.K. Ridley

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

In article <ECyFx...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
Duncan Keith <borr...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:

>It was Orpington. Labour came third, Referendum fourth as it happens. So I
>presume none of the self righteous, dirty tricks, Labour bleaters out
>there have got anything to whinge about - seeing it was true.

>Labour's campaign centred on stopping us from winning - which they just
>managed to do. The Labour candidate said in her speech that she was
>pleased to have prevented us from beating her conservative friends.

I don't know about what the Labour candidate in Harborough said this time, but
having seen absolutely nowt of them all year in the Halls, they turned up 6
days before polling. I think the national, presidential style of their campaign
allowed them to increase their vote. Also we didn't concentrate on holding on
to our 1992 vote, some of which went to Labour.

Hence as was predicted during the campaign as the result if more people voted
Labour, Edward Garnier was again returned to sit on the Tory benches.

If people had voted the same in the General election as they voted in the
simultaneous county elections the Liberal Democrats would have won comfortably.

Mr A J Smith

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Henry Potts wrote:

> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes
> >On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Henry Potts wrote:
> >> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> writes
> >> >On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Henry Potts wrote:

> [...]
> >> >IIRC I only mentioned it [Tower Hamlets] at all because a


> >> >Libdem didn't understand what was meant by dirty campaigning, and I
> >> >only referred back to it because there were Libdem posters claiming
> >> >it never happened.
> >>
> >> They claimed that Labour had distorted what had happened. That is not
> >> the same thing at all.
> >
> >Matthew was certainly saying that he didn't think that they'd been racist.
> >Someone else made a comment about how if what they'd heard was true then
> >it wasn't racist.
>

> You say LibDem posters "claim[ed] it never happened". The problem is
> with the ambiguity if "it". If "it" means a case of dubious or dirty
> campaigning practice, well no-one has denied it occurred -- see one of
> Matthew's most recent posts, for example -- and that is why a LibDem
> inquiry resulted.

Matthew's changed his tune since the content of the leaflets has been
posted to the newsgroup. He was denying the use of racism, and claiming
that Labour allegations of racism there showed that Labour claims of
LibDem dirty tricks couldn't be believed. He even claimed that I had said
dirty campaigning only meant racism and homophobia, and then claimed this
meant that there was no LibDem dirty campaigning.

> >[...] the reason I think the LibDems are dirty campaigners are


> >because of *all* of the following a) The most famous examples of dirty
> >campaigning I know of have involved the LibDems,
>

> Presumably you refer to Southwark & Bermondsey and Tower Hamlets? In the
> former, most everyone accepts that most of the dirty campaigning
> sometimes attributed to the Liberals was actually by an independent
> Labour candidate. Any remaining allegations have been denied by
> eyewitnesses or have been explained as part of an outing campaign by gay
> activists.

I keep being told that everyone accepts this. I'm not sure everyone does
accept this, but I don't know enough about the case to argue about it.

> As for Tower Hamlets... well, I tend to think of the borough as being a
> disaster area for *all* parties. My first thought still goes to the
> Labour campaign that used wholly fictional polling "data" to claim that
> the BNP was close to winning, giving a massive boost to the BNP who then
> consequently *did* win the seat. A Labour enquiry into these events
> conveniently never reported. Next, I think of the poor campaigning
> tactics of the then local LibDem party and I am glad that there was a
> LibDem internal inquiry that acted by expelling a number of members.
> Finally, it being a recent event, I think of how Walworth Road had to
> impose a candidate for the General Election on the local Labour party.
>
> As for "most famous examples of dirty campaigning", I tend to think of
> more recent events. Littleborough & Saddleworth, where Labour's campaign
> even upset senior members of your own party,

For being too populist, reactionary and negative. Not for being dirty.

> springs to mind. The
> Li*t*eral Democrat is another I often remember. Perhaps I'm just too
> young to think of more ancient events!


>
> >b) I've come across dishonest or dirty campaigning by Libdems in both

> >the co[n]stituencies I've campaigned in,
>
> (We discuss these in another sub-thread.)


>
> >and c) Labour activists from elsewhere in the country
> >(including those on this newsgroup) seem to have formed a similar opinion,
> >and I don't believe that this can be down to conspiracy or coincidence.
>

> But you seem strangely unable to comprehend that a certain political
> bias may be at work.

The point is that the expected political bias would be claims that the
Tories were dirty campaigners. Speaking as someone whose entire experience
of campaigning in general elections has been in seats where the LibDems
were irrelevant, my political bias would be more anti-Tory than
anti-Libdem. Yet the fact is in both cases the Tories fought more cleanly
than the Libdems.

> Would anyone be surprised that Labour activists
> don't go on about cases of Labour's dirty campaigning? I'm happy to
> admit that when I get together with other LibDem activists, we don't
> usually concentrate on the occasional mistakes that have been made in
> our party.
>
> In my experience -- and I fully accept that my experiences are wholly
> biased -- dirty campaigning comes most often from Labour in Lab/LibDem
> marginals. The shock of the LibDems capturing seats in places like
> Lambeth and Kilburn seems to have really shaken local Labour parties and
> brought forth the most atrocious behaviour.
>
> In my experience on uk.p.e., there seem to be far more cases given of
> Labour's dirty campaigning, but I suspect that is simply because
> there're so many more LibDems here. :)

I thought they'd been relatively few. Most of the efforts to turn
things back on Labour have tended to be about how Labour has behaved
rather than how they've campaigned, or haven't distinguished between
negative and dirty campaigning.

> >> >[...] efforts to change the subject to other people's behaviour[...]


> >>
> >> As far as I remember -- and apologies if I haven't done so accurately
> >> enough -- you originally claimed that the Liberal Democrats routinely
> >> used 'dirty campaigning' and did so more than occurred in other parties.
> >> "[O]ther people's behaviour" is relevant to the latter part of that
> >> claim.
> >
> >How Labour MPs have voted on such and such an issue, or how their have
> >been claims of racism *within* such and such a local party, most
> >definitely aren't relevant to this.
>

> Firstly, at this point in my post, I was not referring to my comments
> elsewhere about Labour MPs' behaviour on the age of consent vote or
> about a number of London Labour cllr.s who left the party finding it
> racist, but to the numerous examples of dirty campaigning of various
> sorts posted by many people in this thread. I note that you haven't
> commented on any of them.

What comment am I supposed to make? I don't defend dirty campaigning
whoever does it.

> As for these other issues, I don't agree that they are not relevant. I
> posted a lengthy case why MPs' voting behaviour on the age of consent
> was relevant. I also note you haven't answered those points. To repeat
> more succinctly: an MPs' record is the very basis of their campaign for
> re-election; they made their homophobic attitudes known in a very public
> fashion.

But disagreeing with you does not equal dirty campaigning.

> As for racism in the Labour party leading to cllr.s leaving the party...
> well, no, it isn't directly relevant to the question of campaigning
> styles. However, I still wish to talk about it

Well you've talked about it. Nobody else knows anything about it, nobody
knows the details, it isn't really on-topic, so why keep referring back
to it? It just looks like an effort to change the subject.

> >> [...] which actually matters more (that 20% of Labour MPs -- as well


> >> as MPs of a number of other parties -- voted against an equal age of
> >> consent or uncertain allegations about Liberal campaigning in the
> >> Southwark & Bermondsey Parliamentary by-election)?
> >
> >With respect to what?
> >
> >With regards to the issue of dirty campaigning, the latter.
> >
> >With regards to the political issue of the age of consent, the former,
>

> Oh, good. I'm glad you agree with me.
>
> Let me put my point another way: when you, a member of a homophobic
> political party, complain about homophobic *campaigning* (and
> unsubstantiated allegations about events a long time ago, by a different
> party, at that), that seems a bit rich...

I'm not a member of a homophobic party. I'm a member of the party that has
done most for gay rights. I'm a member of a party whose leader spoke in
the age of consent debate arguing for equality. I'm a member of a party
that is responsible for there being an openly gay cabinet minister and
two MPs elected for the first time as out candidates. I don't think I'd
even met anyone who was openly gay until I became involved in Labour
politics. To describe Labour as a homophobic party is downright stupid.

And you really ought to apologise.



> >and because what can really make a difference to people is the absolute
> >rather than the proportionate number of MPs supporting the view.
>

> If there had been more LibDem MPs instead of Labour MPs, 16 could be the
> age of consent now.

Only if the new Libdem MPs agreed with the existing Libdem MPs, which is
what I'm disputing.

> >> [...] do you not accuse Liberal Democrat regulars to this newsgroup


> >> of defending their party instead of tackling dirty campaigning?
> >
> >I accuse them of defending their party.
>

> Er... is it a sin to defend your party?

Only when they're in the wrong.

> >> [...] I note you snipped my question about posts defending


> >> Labour's homophobia.
> >
> >Okay if you have the posts, go ahead and tell us about them.
>

> Yours, right now, will suffice as an example. You downplay the
> homophobic actions of Labour MPs above.

Hang on, we were talking about campaigning, once more you change the
subject.

As for "downplaying homophobic actions" all I've down is point out that a)
that is a change of subject, and b) you've no way of knowing how many
LibDem MPs would have voted against if there had been hundreds of Libdem
MPs instead of a handful.

Mark Y-M

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997 12:46:38 +0100, Mr A J Smith
<ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote thus:

>I'm not a member of a homophobic party.

agreed - it's a partially homophobic-acting party.

>I'm a member of the party that has
>done most for gay rights.

evidence?

> I'm a member of a party whose leader spoke in
>the age of consent debate arguing for equality.

and abstained in the vote on gays in the military, and allowed (and
still allows) his front bench to argue against removing that ban.

> I'm a member of a party
>that is responsible for there being an openly gay cabinet minister and
>two MPs elected for the first time as out candidates.

Well, it was the constituents that were responsible, but point
accepted.

> I don't think I'd
>even met anyone who was openly gay until I became involved in Labour
>politics. To describe Labour as a homophobic party is downright stupid.

yes - it is rather sweeping.

>> If there had been more LibDem MPs instead of Labour MPs, 16 could be the
>> age of consent now.
>
>Only if the new Libdem MPs agreed with the existing Libdem MPs, which is
>what I'm disputing.

why? They sign up to it when they join the party - not something that
happens in Labour (even in the expanded new clause 4).



>As for "downplaying homophobic actions" all I've down is point out that a)
>that is a change of subject, and b) you've no way of knowing how many
>LibDem MPs would have voted against if there had been hundreds of Libdem
>MPs instead of a handful.

well - we do know how the votes at party conference (which are all one
member one vote unlike certain other conferences) go, and you don't
find the same level of opposition as seen in labour conferences -
though that is thankfully decreasing.

Mark Ynys-Môn : mark@@archdruid.demon..co..uk
http://www.libdems.org.uk/people/aos/delga/index.htm
"To strangle the last King with the entrails of the last Priest"
.....allegedly the ambition of Voltaire
Opinions etc are mine and not Demon Internet's

David Boothroyd

unread,
Jul 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/9/97
to

In article <mYlnMlAm...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts writes:
> In article <97070722...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
> <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes


> >In article <ECyFx...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, "Duncan Keith" writes:
> >> It was Orpington. Labour came third, Referendum fourth as it happens. So I

> >> presume none of the self righteous, dirty tricks, Labour bleaters out
> >> there have got anything to whinge about - seeing it was true.
> >

> >It was untrue. The Labour vote in Orpington was in no way comparable with
> >the Referendum Party vote - Labour polled over 10,000 and the Refs only
> >2,300.
>
> So, both parties were complete no-hopers and had the Ref.s been doing
> better nationally, as some polls had been suggesting, it would have been
> even closer. I think the quote is pretty accurate.

If the Refs had got 15% then they might have beaten Labour. But they were
miles off that and no-one was saying that they would be at that sort of
level.

> >[...] But you are a councillor for St. Paul's Cray ward
> >who won your seat from Labour (coming lowest of the three Lib Dems I
> >notice) so you must have unusual sensitivity to a Labour vote in south-
> >east London. [...]
>
> And that Labour lost must make you quite sensitive too...?

I'm not a member of Orpington CLP. There aren't any Labour/Lib Dem
marginals in Westminster.

--
\/ David Boothroyd, psephologist, Libertarian socialist.De minimis non curat DB
British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
The House of Commons now: Lab 417, C 162, L Dem 46, UU 10, SNP 6, PC 4, SDLP 3,
SF 2, UDUP 2, Ind 1, UKUP 1, Spkrs 4, Vac 1 (Uxbridge). Government majority 180

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to da...@election.demon.co.uk

David Boothroyd wrote:

> > And that Labour lost must make you quite sensitive too...?
>
> I'm not a member of Orpington CLP. There aren't any Labour/Lib Dem
> marginals in Westminster.

Conwy??
Chesterfield??
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross??
Southwark and Bermondsey??
Rochdale??
Oldham East and Saddleworth??

There's six just off the top of my head David. You are slipping these
days.

Gerry Lynch

'The people's flag is slightly pink, it's not as red as most folks
think.
And now with Blair and Prescott too, the fucking thing's turned totally
blue.'

Anthony Fry

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to


Gerry Lynch <gi0...@hotmail.com> wrote in article

> Rochdale??
> Oldham East and Saddleworth??

Ooh stop it. The bit of my BBC Election Night video is almost as worn over
Liz Lynne's result as it is over Michael Portillo's. Again, again.

Tony Fry

David Boothroyd

unread,
Jul 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/10/97
to

In article <33C4D6...@hotmail.com>, Gerry Lynch writes:
> David Boothroyd wrote:
> > > And that Labour lost must make you quite sensitive too...?
> >
> > I'm not a member of Orpington CLP. There aren't any Labour/Lib Dem
> > marginals in Westminster.
>
> Conwy??

In Wales.

> Chesterfield??

In Derbyshire.

> Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross??

In Highland.

> Southwark and Bermondsey??

In Southwark London Borough.

> Rochdale??
> Oldham East and Saddleworth??

In Greater Manchester.

No wards of Westminster City Council. 0/6. Must read the thread before
jumping into it.

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

David Boothroyd wrote:

> No wards of Westminster City Council. 0/6. Must read the thread before
> jumping into it.

Ooh, all that late night posting makes you catty David. I was reading
the thread. Your language wasn't totally clear.

Gerry Lynch

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

David Boothroyd

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

In article <5q2s4t$k...@hawk.le.ac.uk>, I.K. Ridley writes:

>
> Anyone have a list of Liberal Democrat target seats for the next election?
> Or Labour target seats to take off the Liberal Democrats?

Brief list of top Liberal Democrat targets:

Rank Constituency Target From Majority

1 Teignbridge C 0.45
2 Wells C 0.94
3 Mid Dorset and Poole North C 1.34
4 Totnes C 1.63
5 North Norfolk C 2.20
6 Tiverton and Honiton C 2.80
7 Bridgwater C 3.29
8 West Dorset C 3.44
9 Eastbourne C 3.79
10 Conwy Lab 3.84
11 Christchurch C 3.85
12 South West Surrey C 4.77
13 Orpington C 4.91
14 North Dorset C 5.22
15 Southend, West C 5.62
16 North Wiltshire C 5.99
17 Cheadle C 6.08
18 Oldham East and Saddleworth Lab 6.26
19 Aberdeen, South Lab 7.64
20 West Worcestershire C 7.79
21 Guildford C 8.41
22 Westmorland and Lonsdale C 8.90
23 Rochdale Lab 9.45
24 Worthing East and Shoreham C 9.89

Even Briefer list of top Labour targets from Liberal Democrat:

1 Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale 3.82
2 Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross 7.74
3 North Southwark and Bermondsey 8.30

Henry Potts

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

In article <97071023...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <33C4D6...@hotmail.com>, Gerry Lynch writes:
>> David Boothroyd wrote:
>> > > And that Labour lost must make you quite sensitive too...?
>> >
>> > I'm not a member of Orpington CLP. There aren't any Labour/Lib Dem
>> > marginals in Westminster.
>>
>> Conwy??
>
>In Wales.
>
>> Chesterfield??
>
>In Derbyshire.
>
>> Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross??
>
>In Highland.
>
>> Southwark and Bermondsey??
>
>In Southwark London Borough.
>
>> Rochdale??
>> Oldham East and Saddleworth??
>
>In Greater Manchester.
>
>No wards of Westminster City Council. 0/6. Must read the thread before
>jumping into it.

'Twas an easy mistake, what with "in Westminster" being some what
ambiguous.
--
Henry

David Stone

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

In Article <UcIrdiAsJNvzEw$9...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> (BTW, please include a date. That the form comes from the "Island
> Liberal Focus Team" suggests that this was prior to the Liberal
> Democrats -- hardly a good example of LibDem behaviour then! ;) )

I can't because, as I have already complained, Foci invariably lack dates.
(& you lot claim there is no central management!) All the ones I have
quoted are *LD* publications from 1992&3. The first one, Had enough?, was
October 1992.

Just to be sure, Nigel, could you tell us how many members and candidates
Liberal party had in Isle of Dogs? How many Foci did Liberal party
publish in Tower hamlets in 1992-3?

> And...? Where is the racism (or homophobia)?

Matthew and others have found racism. I have nothing to add.

> I don't say that I agree with the Island LibDems,

Henry is coming close to it.

> but is it wrong for a community to be worried
> that its children aren't getting access to housing?

It is wrong to confuse that concern with racial minorities and the
statutory obligation to house certain homeless people.

BTW, most immigrants benefit their chosen country. We can see this in
Great Britain from those corner shops that never seem to shut.

> It is wrong for a community to want a say in local housing policy?

IIRC your party voted for Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1974/6/?

> Has Labour not supported similar policies elsewhere/elsewhen?

Another own goal.

To quote the excellent, and on top form DB, Earth to Henry, come in Henry.

At the time, Labour in Tower Hamlets was working towards a scheme along the
lines of Sons and daughters.
--


David Stone

unread,
Jul 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/11/97
to

In Article <yVpyPCAq...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>, Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> This time, a list of London councillors in, say, the last decade who have
> left their party giving racism in that party as the reason.

Well there was that parliamentary by-election candidate in Newham. He was
your only Newham councillor until he defected to Labour to get away from
racism.

> All the ones I am aware of were in the Labour
> party, so that should make your task easier.

they are now.

When people leave parties, they often make all sorts of allegations. When they
defect, invariably [I can hardly bring myself to say this - it's so corny] they
claim, "I did not leave party X, it left me. It's not the party I joinned."

If we take Sue Slipman and Emma Nicholson, we will see LDs are the old
Conservative Party *and* the old Communist Party.

It is, therefore, an unfair comparsion to match complaints from defectors
with official LD publications.
--


David Stone

unread,
Jul 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/12/97
to

In Article <5pqe3b$1...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> > Matthew seems to have noticed that in writing the weak excuses above, he cuts
> > himself from his own root. Matthew, one may recall, considers himself to be
> > a Liberal. This is the party that fought hardest against racism but merger
> > expediency, and electoral convenience, dictate an about turn. You don't
> > believe that rubbish anymore than I do, Matthew.
>
> Where am I saying anything that is racist?

Exactly! Matthew is not a racist. Therefore he has no place in the LDs who
use any excuse - including racism - to gain power.

> If this Focus was not the worst example of racism you know of, please give
> some more examples.

I think you have had 3. Could Matthew tell me how many he wants. No rude
answers from others please.

> > It is not good enought to say IOD, wherever, were exceptional because this
> > sort of thing is happening all the time. I believe every 2nd to Tory placed
> > LD candidate this year sent a Focus claiming Labour was fighting it out with
> > the Marmite Army for 3rd place. AFAIK, that was not true anywhere.
>
> It certainly was in Lewes where I spent part of the general election
> campaign. The Referendum Party was strong and well-organised there, and was
> getting significant support in canvass returns (it beat Labour in mine).

Lewes 1997
Labour 10.64%
Ref 5.05%

Lewisham Deptford (1997) Lab hold.
Lewisham East (1997) Lab hold.
Lewisham West (1997) Lab hold.

Funny how Ref & Lab were fighting it out for 3rd place when we got 419 MPs
and they got, err, let me check this, none.
--


David Stone

unread,
Jul 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/12/97
to

In Article <5pt26l$o...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:

> In other words, the Labour Party has an organised campaign to brand the
> Liberal Democrats as "dirty campaigners".

I wish. Unfort., Labour has bigger fish to fry.

More LD paranoia.

I am serious. Labour & Tories could easily do this by publishing Foci and
using them in PPBs.

> This involves looking for racism and claiming it was there when none
> was intended, taking isolated remarks and leaflets out of context and
> claiming what was done there is general amongst LibDems,

Matthew!!! I have now, errors excepted, quoted 3 Foci in full. Apart from my
errors, and formatting I cannot reproduce, I did not add or subtract anything
from those Foci. If the context was misleading, it was LDs' (t/a "Liberals")
fault.

> claiming LibDems are responsible for things done by others,
> carrying on telling lies even when they have been disproved etc.

^^^^

If that word were declared unlawful, Matthew would have to emmigrate. Never
in this history of Foci has one party excused so much filth with one silly
word.
--


Henry Potts

unread,
Jul 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/12/97
to

In article <ED6G2...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone
<d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> writes [...]
>I have said before that I have seen at least
>one misleading Labour leaflet.
>
>You lot started this argument after someone called Greg suggested your
>campaiging methods **might** have something to do with your HoC representation.
>Labour and the Conservatives are tending to follow you down this road as the
>only way to redress the balance. AFAIK, all Labour tricks were cleaner than
>the LD tricks in the same district.
>
>AFAICT Labour has not made statements it did not believe at the time while I
>am sure the LDs have. [...]

In Tower Hamlets, Labour once put out a leaflet claiming polling
evidence that the BNP were close to winning the seat. (This gave a
massive boost to the BNP, who consequently did win the seat.) The
claimed polling evidence was wholly fictional. It was a lie. The party
has admitted this. David S., for some reason, refuses to believe his own
party in this instant...
--
Henry

Mr A J Smith

unread,
Jul 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/13/97
to

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Mark Y-M wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997 12:46:38 +0100, Mr A J Smith
> <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote thus:


>
> >I'm not a member of a homophobic party.
>

> agreed - it's a partially homophobic-acting party.

As are all parties.


> >I'm a member of the party that has
> >done most for gay rights.
>

> evidence?

Check out who was in government when homosexuality was legalised.

> > I'm a member of a party whose leader spoke in
> >the age of consent debate arguing for equality.
>

> and abstained in the vote on gays in the military,

Which vote? When?



> >> If there had been more LibDem MPs instead of Labour MPs, 16 could be the
> >> age of consent now.
> >
> >Only if the new Libdem MPs agreed with the existing Libdem MPs, which is
> >what I'm disputing.
>

> why? They sign up to it when they join the party - not something that
> happens in Labour

Of course not. Moral issues are like that.

> (even in the expanded new clause 4).

Really? What do they sign up to exactly?



> >As for "downplaying homophobic actions" all I've down is point out that a)
> >that is a change of subject, and b) you've no way of knowing how many
> >LibDem MPs would have voted against if there had been hundreds of Libdem
> >MPs instead of a handful.
>

> well - we do know how the votes at party conference (which are all one
> member one vote unlike certain other conferences) go,

How can you do conference votes by one member one vote? Unless you have a
very small membership or a very large conference it seems impossible.

> and you don't
> find the same level of opposition as seen in labour conferences -
> though that is thankfully decreasing.

Have you attended conferences of both parties?

Stephen Goddard

unread,
Jul 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/13/97
to

On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, David Stone wrote:

> > Again, since David presumably has good grounds for this assertion, it must
> > be true,
>
> I like it when people tell me I'm right. Some say I'm ego-tistical but that
> has more to do with way I fill out my skin tight jeans.

Oddly, you don't actually say whether you _do_ have any grounds for
asserting that every second-placed Lib Dem in the country claimed Labour
and the Marmite Army were fighting it out for third place. Since the Lib
Dems certainly claimed nothing of the sort in the constituency where I was
most active, I imagine you accept that your assertion was not only
baseless, but wrong.

> > I should imagine quite a lot of Labour
> > members even believe in dangerously radical things like legalising
> > cannabis, although of course there's no danger of that ever becoming
> > Labour party policy (or indeed being debated at Labour conference).
>
> This is a change of subject as I have said before. We said you are soft on
> drugs, as you are. You are now claiming you are right to be soft on drugs.
> It makes no difference because you are still soft on drugs.

Unfortunately, you haven't said in what sense discussing the problem of
drugs leaves one open to the charge of being "soft on drugs". There's a
pretty good chance that the average person, upon being told that an
organisation is "soft on drugs" would assume it meant they were
enthusiastically in favour of wholesale legalisation, advocated leniency
towards drug pushers, etc. Not that they were in favour of public
discussion of the problem. Therefore the claim that LDs are "soft on
drugs" could be misleading (especially given the innuendo occasioned by
the juxtaposition "soft on drugs, high on taxes", but let that pass).

> Look, you lot did this in the 1980s over the "looney left" and uni nuke dis.
> As intelligent people, you know there is a good case for uni nuke dis and
> many of our more celebrated left wing authorities were very efficent and
> popular. Despite this, you used the media image of nutters in Labour to
> make political capital. In many ways the position is now reversed but LDs

From what I remember, there was a perception in the '80s (and perhaps
later) that some Labour local authorities were rather eccentric to say the
least. Among those who seemed to share this perception, of course, was
the then Labour leader, Neil Kinnock. As I recall, the perception was
indeed very widespread in the media. However, I very much doubt whether
it was planted there by Alliance moles.

> > But since it was a Labour leaflet, it must have just been an
> > honest mistake, and not an example of misleading campaigning or anything.
>
> Now Steve is just being rude.

Come now, it's called irony. Don't take it personally :-)

> I have said before that I have seen at least one misleading Labour
> leaflet.

Good. Would you therefore agree that the one I mentioned in my previous
posting (the one distributed at L&S with the headline "Lib Dem candidate
resigns over drugs issue", which turned out to be referring to a local
election candidate in Hampshire) was just a tad misleading? Could it
therefore be reasonably considered a dirty trick?

> You lot started this argument after someone called Greg suggested your
> campaiging methods **might** have something to do with your HoC representation.
> Labour and the Conservatives are tending to follow you down this road as the
> only way to redress the balance. AFAIK, all Labour tricks were cleaner than
> the LD tricks in the same district.

How exactly does one measure the cleanness of a dirty trick? BTW, to say
"us lot" started the argument after someone else said something does
rather suggest that the argument started when the original thing was said.

> AFAICT Labour has not made statements it did not believe at the time while I

> am sure the LDs have. Every time LDs publish a local opinion poll, they are
> a bit ahead or 2% behind.

It is indeed possible that Labour genuinely believed in Oxford West that
it was a close fight between them and the Tories. Certainly they said so
in every leaflet they published, and backed it up with some rather odd
figures which, yes, suggested that they were within a few percentage
points of winning. They were, obviously, somewhat mistaken, but I'm
willing to accept that they believed it. So why should it not be possible
that Lib Dems believed much the same when they made equivalent claims?
There is a serious point here. The result of the last election looks a
great deal more inevitable in retrospect than it did at the time. No-one
knew whether to believe the polls; no-one knew exactly how voters were
going to behave under the prevailing circumsatnces; and there was the
usual phenomenon of over-optimistic canvassing. It's quite possible that
more than one opposition party in a constituency could quite genuinely
believe itself to be in the running during the election and find itself
badly disappointed by the result.

> I've canvassed for your party. We abandoned it
> once after 30 minutes as a dead loss and went down the pub. Yet nowadays LDs
> were in the running in the Hemsworth by-election. Of course. If the
> opposite were not the case - a fact you repeat in your electoral reform
> refrain - it would be a joke.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I quite follow.

> I say Foci have a large element of central management because the same phrases
> crop up. Also, you ran identical campaigns in Bermondsey and Rochdale.
> Bermondsey had a good-ish LD MP with an unpopular Labour opponent. When I
> get your pubs they always look to me like they were produced on auto-pilot.
> Consequently, with a 3rd rate LD candidate, and a similar Labour candidate,
> you screwed up Rochdale.

As lots of other people have pointed out, yes, there is a Lib Dem
Councillors' organisation which does lots of good work producing artwork
and ideas. But _Focus_, or whatever the local party chooses to call it,
is produced locally and will, at least for a large part, deal with
(sometimes extremely) local issues. That's the point.

> > Yes. I wonder how exactly these claims were couched. Couldn't have been
> > implying that the Lib Dems like putting up taxes for the sake of hitting
> > nice middle-class people, could they?
>
> No. We simply said you are high on taxes. Your colleague, Ian Ridley,
> points this out in one of his sigs. It seems to me that it's okay for you
> to say you want higher taxes than Labour but it's not okay for Labour to
> say the same thing.

Again, the phrase "high on taxes" is open to a number of interpretations.
It could be taken to suggest that Lib Dems want to put up all taxes to a
punitively high level; not that they want to put (e.g.) a penny on income
tax for education, etc., etc. I believe the argument our spokesmen have
been using about the budget is that, yes, Labour should put up taxes, but
(1) they should have admitted they would have to in the first place and
(2) they should admit that that is what they are doing, rather than
pretend this is a totally tax-free budget which somehow manages to raise
spending on public services (not that it does that much).

> At least LDs are consistent with Foci. They don't print the truth in Foci
> and they get their knickers in a twist when they see it in our publications.

Once again, you spoil your argument by over-exaggeration. Yeah, right, so
everything ever printed in a _Focus_ is a wicked lie. Get real.

> Okay, I admit it. I have seen one lie in a Labour publication. I have a copy
> of one giving exclusive information that LDs are high on taxes and soft on
> drugs. That was a lie - everyone here knows it and it was not exclusive :-)

Again, I'm afraid I don't quite follow.

Steve.

******************+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++******************
Ay on the shores of darkness there is light
And precipices show untrodden green
There is a budding morrow in midnight
There is a triple sight in blindness keen
(Keats, 'On Homer')
******************+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++******************


Ian Johnston

unread,
Jul 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/13/97
to

Matthew Huntbach (m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk) wrote:

: Tower Hamlets doesn't have much of a black population, its biggest ethnic
: minority is the Bengali community. However, many black voters on the Island
: were also angry that homes there were given to homeless people and their own
: children had nowhere to go when they grew up.

Gotcha. So much for the "long established East End community spirit" - it
was a straighforward "bash the homeless and get votes in exchange" setup,
a la Westminster, then. Coo and I though our local councils were bad in
Scotland. Is any group safe from local government stoked hatred in London?

Ian

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages