David Owen
Adam Gray
contention that had the SDP/Liberal Alliance stayed through to 1992 there'd
have been a hung parliament (presumably because there wouldn't have been the
collapse in the centre party vote that happened when the LDs were created)
and then voting reform would have followed...
...The more interesting thought behind that though, is that if his point
about the outcome of 1992's accepted, it could be argued that the centre
has, since the 1970s had an opportunity to make a breakthrough once a
decade:
In the 1970s, it was clearly the Feb 1974 election - then at Tory expense
broadly
In the 1980s, it was the 1983 election - at Labour's expense (imagine what
might have happened without the Falklands...)
In the 1990s, it would have been 1992 on the scenario above, at Tory expense
And in this decade, it will probably be seen that 2005 was their big chance,
at Labour's expense
Adam
oliver...@hotmail.com
the interviewer to ask "And how many votes did your candidate get in
the Bootle by-election?"
I think that when he took his ball away at the time of the "SL:D"
merger, he genuinely believed his three-MP party would make a
breakthrough. He seems to have realised his mistake fairly quickly, to
be fair, and jumped ship (to the bemusement of his members, I knew one
at the time.)
Incidentally, the recent election low-point for the
LibDem/Liberal/Alliance vote wasn't 1992 but 1997, when they more than
doubled their representation, but that's the electoral system for you.
Tim Roll-Pickering
>I missed it, but whenever I see Owen pontificating like this, I want
> the interviewer to ask "And how many votes did your candidate get in
> the Bootle by-election?"
> I think that when he took his ball away at the time of the "SL:D"
> merger, he genuinely believed his three-MP party would make a
> breakthrough. He seems to have realised his mistake fairly quickly, to
> be fair, and jumped ship (to the bemusement of his members, I knew one
> at the time.)
There was a time when the continuing SDP could credibly claim to be a
contender, at least for third party status (and then in turn build on that
once the others were out of the way). They seemed to be strangling the
SaLaDs in the polls (in a very competitive period for third parties with the
Greens also taking support) and getting credible results in some
by-elections. Then the Green challenge faded away and the Lib Dems settled
down, with the result that there was a clear third party again and it wasn't
the Owen brigade.
Matthew Huntbach
The real issue was what the press was reporting bore no relationship to
what was actually happening. What was actually happening was that most
Liberal Democrat and SDP activists accepted the merger was a necessity and
were working harmoniously on it, and most of us who were unhappy about aspects
of it still accepted it was what the two parties had democratically agreed
to and so went along with it. Only a tiny number of people - many of them the
sort of nutter that was best rid of - were seriously contemplating setting
up rival third parties.
But throughout the period of the Liberal/SDP alliance, the press had
completely overemphasised the role and importance of the SDP as a party
and underempohasised the Liberal Party. The reality is that most of the
activist work that was getting the third party movement up and going was being
done by Liberals, only in a small number of places were the SDP a significant
activist force. This ought to have been obvious after the 1983 general
election, and more so after the 1987 one, and from a glance at the number
of councillors each party had. The SDP leadership, however, could not see
what was happening, and thought it was their own Westminster activities
that were bringing in the votes. And that is how the Westminster-fixated
media reported it as well.
Because the SDP was overemphasised in media reporting, and because Owen's
minority faction (in reality consisting of him, a few Westminster
hangers-on, and a handful of nutters in the grassroots) was quite wrongly
reported as being "the SDP" rather than an entirely new party, people whose
knowledge of what was happening came from media reports quite wrongly
believed there had been some sort of serious splitting up of the third party
movement. There hadn't been.
The leadership of the then SLD made it worse by trying to repeat the 1981
game of pretending they were an entirely new party, whereas it would have
been much more sensible to have emphasised continuity. Opinion poll figures
reflected the rubbish people had come across in the media, and it took
a lot of activist work to get across the reality that things hadn't changed,
it was still the same old Liberals doing the same old work as before.
As I said at the time, Liberal-SDP merger should have been handled very
simply. The Liberal Party should have voted to make the SDP a recognised
body in the party. I can't remember the exact constitutional term, but
there were already a number of bodies such as the Young Liberals which
operated autonomously and had their own constitutions, but where membership
of the body conferred full membership of the Liberal Party. Simple and
effective, and had it been done the new members of the Liberal Party could
have used its constitutional mechanisms democratically to make whatever
changes to the Liberal Party's constitution they could through democratic
debate in accordance with their real proportonate membership.
It was entirely Owen's arrogance that smashed things up - the desperate
atempts to bend over backwards to keep him on board in the merger, his
refusal to accept the democratic vote of his party to merge, and the liars
in the media who completely misreported what was happening - even the
supposedly neutral BBC who reported the 1st conference of Owen's new
party as the "8th conference of the SDP", a disgustingly biased lie.
Matthew Huntbach
Adam Gray
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.06...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
> The real issue was what the press was reporting bore no relationship to
> what was actually happening. What was actually happening was that most
> Liberal Democrat and SDP activists accepted the merger was a necessity and
> were working harmoniously on it, and most of us who were unhappy about
> aspects
> of it still accepted it was what the two parties had democratically agreed
> to and so went along with it. Only a tiny number of people - many of them
> the
> sort of nutter that was best rid of - were seriously contemplating setting
> up rival third parties.
That's not entirely true Matthew: it wasn't a press invention that the SDP
beat the SLD into third place in the Richmond Yorkshire byelection...
Adam
Tim Roll-Pickering
> Because the SDP was overemphasised in media reporting, and because Owen's
> minority faction (in reality consisting of him, a few Westminster
> hangers-on, and a handful of nutters in the grassroots) was quite wrongly
> reported as being "the SDP" rather than an entirely new party, people
> whose
> knowledge of what was happening came from media reports quite wrongly
> believed there had been some sort of serious splitting up of the third
> party
> movement. There hadn't been.
Wasn't there a legal challenge that upheld the right of the Owen lot to call
themselves the SDP (and equally Meadowcroft using the Liberal name)?
And are you denying the rise of the Greens and their huge vote in the 1989
Euro elections (I can't recall the figures but didn't they outpoll the
SaLaDs?).
> As I said at the time, Liberal-SDP merger should have been handled very
> simply. The Liberal Party should have voted to make the SDP a recognised
> body in the party. I can't remember the exact constitutional term, but
> there were already a number of bodies such as the Young Liberals which
> operated autonomously and had their own constitutions, but where
> membership of the body conferred full membership of the Liberal Party.
> Simple and
> effective, and had it been done the new members of the Liberal Party could
> have used its constitutional mechanisms democratically to make whatever
> changes to the Liberal Party's constitution they could through democratic
> debate in accordance with their real proportonate membership.
That sounds rather like a Liberal takeover of the SDP - surely the whole
reason the SDP was formed was because many did not see the Liberals as their
natural home.
> even the
> supposedly neutral BBC who reported the 1st conference of Owen's new
> party as the "8th conference of the SDP", a disgustingly biased lie.
You know this reminds me of the way the various Sinn Feins declare
themselves to be the one true Sinn Fein founded in 1905 and take great
offence to being referred to as a new/breakaway party or to some other being
listed as a continuation...
JohnLoony
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
> Because the SDP was overemphasised in media reporting, and because Owen's
> minority faction (in reality consisting of him, a few Westminster
> hangers-on, and a handful of nutters in the grassroots) was quite wrongly
> reported as being "the SDP" rather than an entirely new party,
I seem to remember that it was usually referred to as "the Owenite SDP"
or similar. Anybody who was remotely interested in politics knew
perfectly well that it was a new party, and not a continuation of the
old SDP - as was also the new Liberal Party.
> As I said at the time, Liberal-SDP merger should have been handled very
> simply. The Liberal Party should have voted to make the SDP a recognised
> body in the party.
Having read the book about the history of the SDP by Ivor Crewe and
Thingy, I have come to the opinion that the whole "Alliance" was doomed
from the start. The SDP which was established in 1981 very quickly
(i.e. within months, not years) came to be seen by some of its members
as being inevitably and naturally moving towards an eventual merger,
and that others saw its whole purpose as being a separate distinct
party with its own ethos, policies, image and history.
With the benefit of hindsight, any alliance between the Liberal Party
and the SDP should have been arranged locally on the basis of
co-operation and avoiding split votes, and not on the basis of a joint
manifesto or joint policies or joint spokespeople. Otherwise - again
with the benefit of hindsight - the SDP should have been strangled at
birth through ruthless competition in elections.
Of course, if we had AV instead of FPTP, then the Liberal Party and the
SDP could have survived as separate distinct parties anyway - with any
de-facto merger or alliance being mandated by the voters through their
preferences. And, of course, if we had STV instead of AV, then it
would probably not have been necessary for the SDP to exist in the
first place.
Matthew Huntbach
> "Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> The real issue was what the press was reporting bore no relationship to
>> what was actually happening. What was actually happening was that most
>> Liberal Democrat and SDP activists accepted the merger was a necessity and
>> were working harmoniously on it, and most of us who were unhappy about
>> aspects of it still accepted it was what the two parties had democratically
>> agreed to and so went along with it. Only a tiny number of people - many of
>> them the sort of nutter that was best rid of - were seriously contemplating
>> setting up rival third parties.
> That's not entirely true Matthew: it wasn't a press invention that the SDP
> beat the SLD into third place in the Richmond Yorkshire byelection...
It was extremely unfortunate for the SLD that the first by-election in
what would have been a winnable seat for the Liberal-SDP alliance took
place in a seat - possibly the only such one one in the country - where
there was enough strength in a local branch of Owen's new SDP to
mount a credible challenge, including most importantly a credible local
candidate. This was combined with national media coverage which at that
time was reporting Owen's SDP as if it was a party roughly equal in strength
across the country to the SLD, which was simply a lie.
It took several further by-elections to reveal that Richmond Yorkshire
was a one-off, Owen's SDP did not have any sort of activist base that
could seriously mount a parliamentary by-election challenge, because
the vast bulk of Liberal and SDP activists had stayed with their parties
when they merged to form the SLD.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
>> Because the SDP was overemphasised in media reporting, and because Owen's
>> minority faction (in reality consisting of him, a few Westminster
>> hangers-on, and a handful of nutters in the grassroots) was quite wrongly
>> reported as being "the SDP" rather than an entirely new party, people
>> whose knowledge of what was happening came from media reports quite wrongly
>> believed there had been some sort of serious splitting up of the third
>> party movement. There hadn't been.
> Wasn't there a legal challenge that upheld the right of the Owen lot to call
> themselves the SDP (and equally Meadowcroft using the Liberal name)?
I don't recall any such legal challenge. If there was, or if a legal opinion
had been sought, I think it would have been on whether political parties
had any rights of ownership to names rather than on whether the Social
and Liberal Democrats were the true legal successors to the Liberal Party
and the SDP.
> And are you denying the rise of the Greens and their huge vote in the 1989
> Euro elections (I can't recall the figures but didn't they outpoll the
> SaLaDs?).
No, I'm not denying what happened in the Euro-elections in 1989. Partly it
was because SLD activists had exhausted themselves to get a reasonable
result in the local elections that had occurred a month earlier, and put
very little effort into fighting the Euro-elections. Partly it was because
there has been a tendency for the electorate to use the Euro-elections to
vote for fringe parties - see the rise of UKIP. But mainly it was due to
the press misreporting - people really did believe (wrongly) there had been
a complete collapse of what was formerly the Liberal-SDP alliance and that
therefore there was nothing left of it to vote for.
>> As I said at the time, Liberal-SDP merger should have been handled very
>> simply. The Liberal Party should have voted to make the SDP a recognised
>> body in the party. I can't remember the exact constitutional term, but
>> there were already a number of bodies such as the Young Liberals which
>> operated autonomously and had their own constitutions, but where
>> membership of the body conferred full membership of the Liberal Party.
>> Simple and effective, and had it been done the new members of the Liberal
>> Party could have used its constitutional mechanisms democratically to make
>> whatever changes to the Liberal Party's constitution they could through
>> democratic debate in accordance with their real proportonate membership.
> That sounds rather like a Liberal takeover of the SDP - surely the whole
> reason the SDP was formed was because many did not see the Liberals as their
> natural home.
By 1988 when the merger took place it was clear there was not some
distinctive SDP position different from the Liberal Party. People who
were active in the SDP held a similar range of opinions to people who
were active in the Liberal Party. The electorate viewed the two as
identical - there was no significant proportion of people who would vote
SDP but not Liberal or vice versa. There was no reason, apart from the
arrogance of Owen and a few of his hangers-on who regarded it as demeaning
to themselves, for people in the SDP not just to join the Liberal Party.
As I suggested above, there was a simple mechanism by which this
could have been done which would have allowed the SDP to have kept
its separate existence and identity, rather as, for example, the
Co-Operative Party kept its separate existence and identity within the
Lanbour Party.
The SDP had effectively admitted failure less than a year after its
foundation when it started demanding a "share of winnable seats". By
this it meant seats where there was already a significant Liberal vote.
If it was something distinct from the Liberal Party, appealing to
diffferent people, it should not have regarded seats with a significant
Liberal vote as the ones most winnable for itself. Rather it should have
had a separate sort of constituency where the Liberal Party had never
appealed but the SDP did. No such separate constituency existed. On
its foundation, the SDP attempted to be a "Labour Party Mark II" and
its aim was to take over the bulk of the Labour vote leaving
the Labour Party as a fringe left-wing party. It failed completely
in this, making no impact in traditional Labour seats (apart from
John Cartwright's personal vote in Woolwich). In fact it was the
Liberal Party, rather than the SDP, which had managed to establish
support in various traditionally strong Labour areas, such as parts
of Leeds and Liverpool, and Tower Hamlets in London.
>> even the supposedly neutral BBC who reported the 1st conference of Owen's new
>> party as the "8th conference of the SDP", a disgustingly biased lie.
> You know this reminds me of the way the various Sinn Feins declare
> themselves to be the one true Sinn Fein founded in 1905 and take great
> offence to being referred to as a new/breakaway party or to some other being
> listed as a continuation...
But there ought to have been no argument about it - the Social and Liberal
Democrats were both de facto and de jure the successors of the Liberal
Party and the SDP, legally entitled to the assets of the previous parties,
and with the vast bulk of activists of both parties joining it. Had the
media been neutral this is how they would have reported it. But the media
was not neutral - it reported what was basically a lie because of its
pro-Owen bias. It required hard slog from Liberal Democrat activists to
show this was a lie - the Bootle by-election of course being the
culminating event which showed the media had lied, there never was a
significant party called the "SDP" following the foundation of the
Social and Liberal Democrats.
Now, the leadership of the Social and Liberal Democrats were not
entirely free of blame for the fiasco. They made the appallingly
wrong decision to try and promote the Social and Liberal Democrats
as if it was an entirely newly founded party rather than a continuation
of the Liberal Party and SDP. What they were trying to do was repeat
what was done in 1981 when the foundation of the SDP as a truly new party
created a wave of enthusiasm and a brief surge in the opinion polls.
But in doing so instead they gave the impression that a third third party
had been founded and was in competition with the SDP and Liberal
Party, and thus that the third party movement had collapsed into a
whole range of competing parties.
I should say that there was a correct legal argument that the Liberal
Party was a federation of Liberal Associations, and that these Liberal
Associations were under no obligation to pass their assets to the
Liberal Democrats. There were in fact three Liberal Association which
refused to do so. This is the basis on which the Meadowcroft Liberal
Party claims to be the legal successor to the historical Liberal Party.
I find this to be a ludicrous claim, since in effect it says that
no federation may ever dissolve itself so long as there is a minority
even a minority of one of its components which disagrees, since that
minority becomes the legal successor of the federation.
Matthew Huntbach
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> It was entirely Owen's arrogance that smashed things up - the desperate
> atempts to bend over backwards to keep him on board in the merger, his
> refusal to accept the democratic vote of his party to merge
Then again, it was largely Owen's arrogance that caused the SDP to be
formed in the first place and without the SDP, the Alliance wouldn't
have won so many votes in 1983 and gotten over to people that they
could do something other than vote Lab/Con.
Figures like David Owen do that: they can have huge impact, sometimes
good, sometimes bad.
--
Henry
Richard Gadsden
Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:01:27 +0000, m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
wrote:
> But there ought to have been no argument about it - the Social and
> Liberal Democrats were both de facto and de jure the successors of the
> Liberal Party and the SDP, legally entitled to the assets of the
> previous parties, and with the vast bulk of activists of both parties
> joining it. Had the media been neutral this is how they would have
> reported it. But the media was not neutral - it reported what was
> basically a lie because of its pro-Owen bias. It required hard slog from
> Liberal Democrat activists to show this was a lie - the Bootle
> by-election of course being the culminating event which showed the media
> had lied, there never was a significant party called the "SDP" following
> the foundation of the Social and Liberal Democrats.
Matthew, that's unfair. The media was not pro-Owen biased. They are
biased in favour of the media. That's to say, campaigning through the
media is what the media report as important; on the ground campaigning -
because it doesn't operate through the media - cannot be important.
This explains not only Owen, but also Blair and Cameron. The media knows
they work well on TV, and so they flatter the media's perception of their
own importance.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote
>> It was entirely Owen's arrogance that smashed things up - the desperate
>> atempts to bend over backwards to keep him on board in the merger, his
>> refusal to accept the democratic vote of his party to merge
> Then again, it was largely Owen's arrogance that caused the SDP to be
> formed in the first place and without the SDP, the Alliance wouldn't
> have won so many votes in 1983 and gotten over to people that they
> could do something other than vote Lab/Con.
If it was Owen wot won it (I'd rather speak demotic British English
than American, Henry), how come the seats won were in traditional
Liberal areas? How come the urban breakthroughs were Meadowcroft in Leeds,
Alton in Liverpool, Hughes in Bermondsey? The real advance was made in the
1974 elections. The Liberal vote in 1979 was artificially suppressed due to
the Thorpe affair. I don't think things would have been very different with the
third party vote in the 1980s had the SDP never been founded. What
gains it caused were offset by the loss of energy caused by inter-party
wranglings. The fact is that in 1981 the Liberals had learnt how to play the
third party game and were gearing up to do it successfully. The SDP hadn't
a clue, and spent the decade painfully finding that out.
Matthew Huntbach
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> > Matthew Huntbach wrote
> >> It was entirely Owen's arrogance that smashed things up - the desperate
> >> atempts to bend over backwards to keep him on board in the merger, his
> >> refusal to accept the democratic vote of his party to merge
> >
> > Then again, it was largely Owen's arrogance that caused the SDP to be
> > formed in the first place and without the SDP, the Alliance wouldn't
> > have won so many votes in 1983 and gotten over to people that they
> > could do something other than vote Lab/Con.
>
> If it was Owen wot won it (I'd rather speak demotic British English
> than American, Henry),
I only lived in the US for a short time, but it must have been at a
crucial phase in my language development.
> how come the seats won were in traditional
> Liberal areas? How come the urban breakthroughs were Meadowcroft in Leeds,
> Alton in Liverpool, Hughes in Bermondsey? The real advance was made in the
> 1974 elections. The Liberal vote in 1979 was artificially suppressed due to
> the Thorpe affair. I don't think things would have been very different with the
> third party vote in the 1980s had the SDP never been founded. What
> gains it caused were offset by the loss of energy caused by inter-party
> wranglings. The fact is that in 1981 the Liberals had learnt how to play the
> third party game and were gearing up to do it successfully. The SDP hadn't
> a clue, and spent the decade painfully finding that out.
Seats are won from a combination of factors. The SDP factor brought
huge publicity, it made the third party seem like a winning option, it
brought people into politics who hadn't been interested before, it made
people re-evaluate who they supported. That upped the vote everywhere:
up the vote everywhere and you win the seats you were close to winning
before and get votes in other seats that doesn't translate into winning
those seats because of how FPTP works.
Seats are not won purely through local legwork and party activists --
that's something more LibDem activists need to recognise! Local legwork
is hugely important, but you also need big changes in public opinion
and the SDP helped deliver that. I'm not saying it was all because of
the SDP, but I think it's wrong to say they had no impact at all.
--
Henry
Adam Gray
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Matthew Huntbach wrote
>
>>> It was entirely Owen's arrogance that smashed things up - the desperate
>>> atempts to bend over backwards to keep him on board in the merger, his
>>> refusal to accept the democratic vote of his party to merge
>
>> Then again, it was largely Owen's arrogance that caused the SDP to be
>> formed in the first place and without the SDP, the Alliance wouldn't
>> have won so many votes in 1983 and gotten over to people that they
>> could do something other than vote Lab/Con.
>
> If it was Owen wot won it (I'd rather speak demotic British English
> than American, Henry), how come the seats won were in traditional
> Liberal areas? How come the urban breakthroughs were Meadowcroft in Leeds,
> Alton in Liverpool, Hughes in Bermondsey?
Err, was it not the SDP that won Glasgow Hillhead, the SDP that won Crosby,
the SDP that won Portsmouth South, the SDP that won Greenwich, the SDP that
came close in Warrington - were these not urban breakthroughs? Of the five
SDP MPs elected in 1987, only Charles Kennedy won a seat that might be
regarded as typically "Liberal" - if Robert Maclennan had stayed with
Labour, I suspect Caithness would still be a Labour/Tory marginal today.
> The real advance was made in the 1974 elections. The Liberal vote in 1979
> was artificially suppressed due to the Thorpe affair.
...And because the Conservatives had a big advance.
I don't think things would have been very different with the
> third party vote in the 1980s had the SDP never been founded. What
> gains it caused were offset by the loss of energy caused by inter-party
> wranglings. The fact is that in 1981 the Liberals had learnt how to play
> the
> third party game and were gearing up to do it successfully. The SDP hadn't
> a clue, and spent the decade painfully finding that out.
But the fact remains that with Labour on the far left, the only party that
was going to attract moderate Labour support and "one nation" Conservatives
put off by Thatcher was a Social Democratic Party - not a Liberal Party -
and the evidence for that is that the Liberals didn't recruit such people.
It achieved that, but it was rendered pointless by Labour coming to its
senses.
Incidentally, Owen claimed on his Hardtalk that in 1992 he voted Green at
that election - it was widely commented at the time that he voted for Major.
Adam
Tim Roll-Pickering
> If it was Owen wot won it (I'd rather speak demotic British English
> than American, Henry), how come the seats won were in traditional
> Liberal areas? How come the urban breakthroughs were Meadowcroft in Leeds,
> Alton in Liverpool,
1979 by-election.
> Hughes in Bermondsey?
Deeply bitter by-election.
> I don't think things would have been very different with the
> third party vote in the 1980s had the SDP never been founded.
Would the Labour defections have taken place, tipping the balance in the
party and bringing media attention to third party politics?
Tim Roll-Pickering
>> If it was Owen wot won it (I'd rather speak demotic British English
>> than American, Henry), how come the seats won were in traditional
>> Liberal areas? How come the urban breakthroughs were Meadowcroft in
>> Leeds,
>> Alton in Liverpool, Hughes in Bermondsey?
> Err, was it not the SDP that won Glasgow Hillhead, the SDP that won
> Crosby, the SDP that won Portsmouth South, the SDP that won Greenwich, the
> SDP that came close in Warrington - were these not urban breakthroughs?
> Of the five SDP MPs elected in 1987, only Charles Kennedy won a seat that
> might be regarded as typically "Liberal" - if Robert Maclennan had stayed
> with Labour, I suspect Caithness would still be a Labour/Tory marginal
> today.
I thought Caithness was more Liberal than that - didn't it briefly go
Liberal in the 1960s? Owen certainly thought of it as a traditional Liberal
seat and it did have the leader as MP during the start of the party's fringe
years.
> Incidentally, Owen claimed on his Hardtalk that in 1992 he voted Green at
> that election - it was widely commented at the time that he voted for
> Major.
Oh well it's not as if his vote would have made such a difference that
giving him the Foreign Secretaryship would have been worth it.
JohnLoony
Adam Gray wrote:
> Incidentally, Owen claimed on his Hardtalk that in 1992 he voted Green at
> that election - it was widely commented at the time that he voted for Major.
Owen advised people to vote Conservative in 1992, to stop Kinnock from
becoming PM. It was reported at the time that he himself voted Lib
Dem, only because he lived in Tower Hamlets and therefore Lib Dem was
(for him) the main anti-Labour option. If he now claims to have voted
Green in 1992, then he is either lying now or lying then or forgetful
or mad or insane or was erroneously reported or both or all seven.
Adam Gray
news:1137020185.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I very much doubt he could have voted Lib Dem after the rift: equally, I
doubt that Mildred Gordon would have been to his political tastes (or anyone
else's for that matter); if we take him at his word that he's never voted
Tory in his life, and he sounded credible when he said it, then Green would
have been the only realistic choice - and a Green did stand, so he could
have done.
Adam
Matthew Huntbach
The media quite obviously was biased because what it reported just was
not the truth. The only explanation for the media's misreporting of the
Liberal-SDP merger is that they exercised a strong bias in favour of
David Owen's interpretation of events.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote
>> how come the seats won were in traditional
>> Liberal areas? How come the urban breakthroughs were Meadowcroft in Leeds,
>> Alton in Liverpool, Hughes in Bermondsey? The real advance was made in the
>> 1974 elections. The Liberal vote in 1979 was artificially suppressed due to
>> the Thorpe affair. I don't think things would have been very different with the
>> third party vote in the 1980s had the SDP never been founded. What
>> gains it caused were offset by the loss of energy caused by inter-party
>> wranglings. The fact is that in 1981 the Liberals had learnt how to play the
>> third party game and were gearing up to do it successfully. The SDP hadn't
>> a clue, and spent the decade painfully finding that out.
> Seats are won from a combination of factors. The SDP factor brought
> huge publicity, it made the third party seem like a winning option, it
> brought people into politics who hadn't been interested before, it made
> people re-evaluate who they supported. That upped the vote everywhere:
> up the vote everywhere and you win the seats you were close to winning
> before and get votes in other seats that doesn't translate into winning
> those seats because of how FPTP works.
Sure, I'm not saying the foundation of the SDP achieved nothing. I am
questioning, from my own position of having been very actively involved
in the third party movement at the time, whether it was quite so
influential as history paints it. The question is with Labour's
shift to the left and dissatisfaction with the Conservative government,
and the Liberal Party's own development of successful campaigning
strategies, and the ending of the cloud over the Liberal Party from
the Thorpe affair, whether there would have been a big growth in
Liberal Party support during that time anyway. I think there would
have been.
> Seats are not won purely through local legwork and party activists --
> that's something more LibDem activists need to recognise! Local legwork
> is hugely important, but you also need big changes in public opinion
> and the SDP helped deliver that. I'm not saying it was all because of
> the SDP, but I think it's wrong to say they had no impact at all.
The problem with the SDP when it was founded and during its years of
existence is that it discounted the importance of local legwork and
party activists. It really did think that being a successful party meant
having a good national image and leaders and winning on a national swing
of the vote. Had there been a general election just months after its
foundation, this might even have worked. But it was a classic flash party -
briefly appearing and then dying down. In the end the slow growth of the
Liberal Party concentrating on local activism was the surer way of building
a long-lasting and effective third party. By 1988 this was obvious to those
who had stuck it out as local activists in the SDP, the only ones who
couldn't see it were people like Owen, stuck in the Westminster bubble.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> "Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> If it was Owen wot won it (I'd rather speak demotic British English
>> than American, Henry), how come the seats won were in traditional
>> Liberal areas? How come the urban breakthroughs were Meadowcroft in Leeds,
>> Alton in Liverpool, Hughes in Bermondsey?
> Err, was it not the SDP that won Glasgow Hillhead, the SDP that won Crosby,
> the SDP that won Portsmouth South, the SDP that won Greenwich, the SDP that
> came close in Warrington - were these not urban breakthroughs? Of the five
> SDP MPs elected in 1987, only Charles Kennedy won a seat that might be
> regarded as typically "Liberal" - if Robert Maclennan had stayed with
> Labour, I suspect Caithness would still be a Labour/Tory marginal today.
The SDP won Greenwich? Hah. Why do certain Liberal turn into bunny-boilers
to this day at the mention of Rosie Barnes? Because it was hard work from
Liberals who won her that seat, both developing the campaign and doing
the legwork. That was what the Liberal-SDP alliance turned into -
Liberals did the work, the SDP got the credit.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> If it was Owen wot won it (I'd rather speak demotic British English
>> than American, Henry), how come the seats won were in traditional
>> Liberal areas? How come the urban breakthroughs were Meadowcroft in Leeds,
>> Alton in Liverpool,
> 1979 by-election.
So how did Alton manage to win it and hold it in 1983? Because the Liberals
had already made inroads into Liverpool, and devloped campaign strategies
to win urban areas like this.
>> Hughes in Bermondsey?
> Deeply bitter by-election.
Where in fact Hughes had already been working at building a local
campaign before Tatchell even became PPC. How come the SDP flopped
in a by-election held in a neighbouring seat (I think it was Peckham)
at around the same time?
>> I don't think things would have been very different with the
>> third party vote in the 1980s had the SDP never been founded.
> Would the Labour defections have taken place, tipping the balance in the
> party and bringing media attention to third party politics?
On its foundation, the SDP claimed that it would be able to reach and
win over Labour votes that the Liberals couldn't get. It never managed
to do this. Had it done what it claimed, it would not have asked for its
share of "winnable seats" meaning seats where the Liberals had existing
strength.
Matthew Huntbach
Richard Gadsden
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:07:34 +0000, m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
wrote:
> The media quite obviously was biased because what it reported just was
> not the truth.
That's a nonsensical conspiracy theory X-files view of the world.
> The only explanation for the media's misreporting of the
> Liberal-SDP merger is that they exercised a strong bias in favour of
> David Owen's interpretation of events.
They misunderstood, they misinterpreted. From the media's perspective,
what matters is MPS (who split 3-2 in Owen's favour) and strong media
performers - and Owen was the best. Therefore, from their perspective,
the most important bits of the SDP had gone to the Owenites.
Their perspective is distorted, but the distortion was not a pro-Owen
bias, in the sense of favouring Dr. Death.
JNugent
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
>>> Alton in Liverpool,
>> 1979 by-election.
> So how did Alton manage to win it and hold it in 1983? Because the Liberals
> had already made inroads into Liverpool, and devloped campaign strategies
> to win urban areas like this.
That was largely an own goal by the local Labour party, who had spent the
previous three years publically rubbishing their own MP Sir Arthur Irvine (a
Callaghanite), because they wanted the local lefty Robert Wareing shoed in at
the next GE.
The rubbishing backfired when Irvine, understandably miffed by the personalised
attack on him by what was then a left-lurching Hattonite local party, tactically
resigned short of the GE. This allowed the Liberals to conduct an intensive
by-election campaign with an able and charismatic local candidate who had
already made himself popular as a councillor and was well-known in the
constituency for that reason.
(Lord) David Alton is immensely talented, and had he chosen to join a proper
party, there is little doubt that he would have achieved cabinet office.
Sir Arthur Irvine died (of a long-standing illness) soon after the 1979 GE. His
family were scathing about Liverpool Edge Hill Labour Party and the extra stress
they caused him during that illness.
Had Irvine not resigned short of the GE, perhaps Wareing might have won it in
the general meleé (he subsequently went to another Liverpool constituency and
won there) and the story might have been completely different. So I hope David
offers a prayer for the departed soul of Sir Arthur (the architect of the
Liberal success in that constituency) every now and then.
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
>>>> Alton in Liverpool,
>>> 1979 by-election.
>> So how did Alton manage to win it and hold it in 1983? Because the Liberals
>> had already made inroads into Liverpool, and devloped campaign strategies
>> to win urban areas like this.
> That was largely an own goal by the local Labour party, who had spent the
> previous three years publically rubbishing their own MP Sir Arthur Irvine (a
> Callaghanite), because they wanted the local lefty Robert Wareing shoed in at
> the next GE.
>
> The rubbishing backfired when Irvine, understandably miffed by the
> personalised attack on him by what was then a left-lurching Hattonite local
> party, tactically resigned short of the GE. This allowed the Liberals to
> conduct an intensive by-election campaign with an able and charismatic local
> candidate who had already made himself popular as a councillor and was
> well-known in the constituency for that reason.
Yes, so it wasn't all down to the local Labour Party rubbishing their MP,
it also depended on the Liberal Party already having developed a strong
presence in Liverpool so that it had able and charismatic people who were
well known in the constituency.
Which is the point I ws making. While the SDP was a flash-in-the-pan, hoping
to make it with a national swing, the Liberals were busy building up local
strength. The SDP and national commentators just did not get it, to them
politics was all about the Westminster bubble, how the bubble appeared
to the voters, and the national swing this would bring about.
Slow and sure the Liberal approach was, and it was made slower by all the
arguments with the SDP during the 1980s who thought they knew how to do
it and could teach the Liberals a few tricks, and spent 8 years finding
out they were wrong. But if you look at where the Liberal Democrats have
MPs now, it worked.
Matthew Huntbach
Coli...@aol.com
JNugent wrote:
> Sir Arthur Irvine died (of a long-standing illness) soon after the 1979 GE. His
> family were scathing about Liverpool Edge Hill Labour Party and the extra stress
> they caused him during that illness.
>
> Had Irvine not resigned short of the GE, perhaps Wareing might have won it in
> the general meleé (he subsequently went to another Liverpool constituency and
> won there) and the story might have been completely different. So I hope David
> offers a prayer for the departed soul of Sir Arthur (the architect of the
> Liberal success in that constituency) every now and then.
Well, it wasn't quite that simple. It was Sir Arthur's death that
precipitated the by-election BEFORE the General Election. I have no
doubt that his loyalty to the Labour Party in general prevented him
from resigning in the manner described above, despite the increasing
unpleasantness of the Militant-dominated Liverpool District Labour
Party.
As an interesting aside, the following appeared in the Guardian, on 1
March 1974, and it makes clear that the Liberals had already been
"working" Edge Hill well before the rise of Militant:
"The Liberals' hopes of three wins at Liverpool, where they control the
district council, were dashed. Mr Cyril Carr, the former party
chairman, who was confident of taking Wavertree, was bottom of the
poll, as was Mr Trevor Jones - "Jones the Vote" - at Toxteth. Labour
nervousness about Edge Hill, also a Liberal prospect, was proved
unfounded when Sir Arthur Irvine, the former Solicitor-General, was
returned with a majority of 5,750."
In his maiden speach to the Commons, on 3 April 1979, Alton remarked of
his predecessor:
"Hon Members will recall my predecessor Sir Arthur Irvine who had
served the Edge Hill Constituency since 1947, having been elected at a
by-election. He was always most courteous to me. Many constituents
have spoken of the warmth he showed them. Like the right hon member
for Huyton [Sir H. Wilson] he started in the Liberal Party and although
he later replaced the big "L" for a small "l" he never forgot the
fundamental principles of Liberalism."
Matthew Huntbach
> Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:07:34 +0000, m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
> wrote:
>> The media quite obviously was biased because what it reported just was
>> not the truth.
> That's a nonsensical conspiracy theory X-files view of the world.
I think we're taking at cross-purposes. I'm not saying the media knew what
was happening and deliberate lied. I'm suggesting they were lazy and
ignorant and didn't bother trying to find out what was happening, rather
they reported what they thought was happening based on their own biased
view of how things work.
>> The only explanation for the media's misreporting of the
>> Liberal-SDP merger is that they exercised a strong bias in favour of
>> David Owen's interpretation of events.
> They misunderstood, they misinterpreted. From the media's perspective,
> what matters is MPS (who split 3-2 in Owen's favour) and strong media
> performers - and Owen was the best. Therefore, from their perspective,
> the most important bits of the SDP had gone to the Owenites.
>
> Their perspective is distorted, but the distortion was not a pro-Owen
> bias, in the sense of favouring Dr. Death.
Yes, so they had a bias, what they reported was wrong, they did a bad job
to their consumers because they did not report what was actually the news,
that the Liberal Party and SDP had mostly harmoniously merged and was
getting on with the job of being the third party.
I rmemeber it at the time - all I wanted to do was scream at the newspapers
and television broadcaster "look you idiots, you've got it wrong, what
you're reporting bears no relationship to what is actually happening, why
can't you get off your fat arses, drag yourselves out of your London clubs
and bars, and come and find out what is actually happening?".
And I was right, wasn't I, because the CSDP really did consist of just
Owen and a few nutters and in no way was capable of being a viable
third party, but it took a lot of hard work, culminating in the fatal blow
of the Bootle by-election to show that.
Matthew Huntbach
Adam Gray
Well why did these overwhelmingly dominant Liberals give the nomination to
an SDP member then and not one of the hardworkers you had there?
Adam
Adam Gray
> Yes, so it wasn't all down to the local Labour Party rubbishing their MP,
> it also depended on the Liberal Party already having developed a strong
> presence in Liverpool so that it had able and charismatic people who were
> well known in the constituency.
>
> Which is the point I ws making. While the SDP was a flash-in-the-pan,
> hoping
> to make it with a national swing, the Liberals were busy building up local
> strength. The SDP and national commentators just did not get it, to them
> politics was all about the Westminster bubble, how the bubble appeared to
> the voters, and the national swing this would bring about.
Well duh - yes - because the Liberals had been around for a couple of
centuries give or take, and the SDP was formed in 1981. So obviously there
couldn't have been a history of SDP activism anywhere. It remains the case
that the SDP was a modern party that left the Liberals trailing in terms of
its presentation and PR - they looked moderate, dynamic and thrusting,
whereas the Liberals had an different, laidback, fuzzy, "nice but
irrelevant" image; and of course until 1983 given the defections the SDP was
a far LARGER parliamentary party than the Liberals - and we've seen in the
last few weeks how important parliamentary parties are even when they don't
have formal stakes in leadership elections...
> Slow and sure the Liberal approach was, and it was made slower by all the
> arguments with the SDP during the 1980s who thought they knew how to do
> it and could teach the Liberals a few tricks, and spent 8 years finding
> out they were wrong. But if you look at where the Liberal Democrats have
> MPs now, it worked.
I suggest that it was the lessons learned by the Lib Dems from the SDP that
made the more significant impact...
Adam
JNugent
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, JNugent wrote:
>> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
>>>>> Alton in Liverpool,
>>>> 1979 by-election.
>>> So how did Alton manage to win it and hold it in 1983? Because the
>>> Liberals had already made inroads into Liverpool, and devloped
>>> campaign strategies to win urban areas like this.
>> That was largely an own goal by the local Labour party, who had spent
>> the previous three years publically rubbishing their own MP Sir Arthur
>> Irvine (a Callaghanite), because they wanted the local lefty Robert
>> Wareing shoed in at the next GE.
>> The rubbishing backfired when Irvine, understandably miffed by the
>> personalised attack on him by what was then a left-lurching Hattonite
>> local party, tactically resigned short of the GE. This allowed the
>> Liberals to conduct an intensive by-election campaign with an able and
>> charismatic local candidate who had already made himself popular as a
>> councillor and was well-known in the constituency for that reason.
> Yes, so it wasn't all down to the local Labour Party rubbishing their MP,
> it also depended on the Liberal Party already having developed a strong
> presence in Liverpool so that it had able and charismatic people who were
> well known in the constituency.
Erm, the one most definitely does not follow on from the other.
> Which is the point I ws making. While the SDP was a flash-in-the-pan,
> hoping to make it with a national swing, the Liberals were busy building
> up local strength. The SDP and national commentators just did not get it,
> to them politics was all about the Westminster bubble, how the bubble
> appeared to the voters, and the national swing this would bring about.
> Slow and sure the Liberal approach was, and it was made slower by all the
> arguments with the SDP during the 1980s who thought they knew how to do
> it and could teach the Liberals a few tricks, and spent 8 years finding
> out they were wrong. But if you look at where the Liberal Democrats have
> MPs now, it worked.
So.. er.. how many other Lib/Lib-Dem MPs (whether of the able, charismatic sort,
or of the more normal Lib/Lib-Dem non-charismatic,
lacking-in-any-particular-ability-except-whinging sort) were elected in
Liverpool by dint of the hard work of what you call their "slow and sure" method?
Take your time...
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
>>Sir Arthur Irvine died (of a long-standing illness) soon after the 1979 GE. His
>>family were scathing about Liverpool Edge Hill Labour Party and the extra stress
>>they caused him during that illness.
>>Had Irvine not resigned short of the GE, perhaps Wareing might have won it in
>>the general meleé (he subsequently went to another Liverpool constituency and
>>won there) and the story might have been completely different. So I hope David
>>offers a prayer for the departed soul of Sir Arthur (the architect of the
>>Liberal success in that constituency) every now and then.
> Well, it wasn't quite that simple. It was Sir Arthur's death that
> precipitated the by-election BEFORE the General Election.
You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG on that - trust me - I was there.
Sir Arthur resigned and survived until at least after the by-election, though he
was clearly (in retrospect) a very ill man. He applied for the Chiltern
Hundreds. The by-election was NOT triggered by his death, which occurred when he
was no longer an MP, probably after the 1979 GE.
> I have no
> doubt that his loyalty to the Labour Party in general prevented him
> from resigning in the manner described above, despite the increasing
> unpleasantness of the Militant-dominated Liverpool District Labour
> Party.
> As an interesting aside, the following appeared in the Guardian, on 1
> March 1974, and it makes clear that the Liberals had already been
> "working" Edge Hill well before the rise of Militant:
> "The Liberals' hopes of three wins at Liverpool, where they control the
> district council, were dashed. Mr Cyril Carr, the former party
> chairman, who was confident of taking Wavertree, was bottom of the
> poll, as was Mr Trevor Jones - "Jones the Vote" - at Toxteth. Labour
> nervousness about Edge Hill, also a Liberal prospect, was proved
> unfounded when Sir Arthur Irvine, the former Solicitor-General, was
> returned with a majority of 5,750."
>
> In his maiden speach to the Commons, on 3 April 1979, Alton remarked of
> his predecessor:
>
> "Hon Members will recall my predecessor Sir Arthur Irvine who had
> served the Edge Hill Constituency since 1947, having been elected at a
> by-election. He was always most courteous to me. Many constituents
> have spoken of the warmth he showed them. Like the right hon member
> for Huyton [Sir H. Wilson] he started in the Liberal Party and although
> he later replaced the big "L" for a small "l" he never forgot the
> fundamental principles of Liberalism."
Note he did not speak of "the late Sir Arthur Irvine". Unlike Belotti, Chidgey,
et al, Alton was not an ambulance-chaser.
I can certainly echo Alton's remarks about Sir Arthur's civility and courtesy,
which was totally at odds with the Liverpool Labour Party as it had become by
the late seventies.
Richard Gadsden
15:38:29 -0000, ad...@nospamfulhamreach.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:
[Greenwich]
> Well why did these overwhelmingly dominant Liberals give the nomination
> to an SDP member then and not one of the hardworkers you had there?
Because it was their turn. Between the formation of the Alliance and the
1983 General Election, the two parties alternated in standing candidates
in by-elections.
Coli...@aol.com
>You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG on that - trust me - I was there.
>Sir Arthur resigned and survived until at least after the by-election, though he
was clearly (in retrospect) a very ill man.
Well, don't blame me for suggesting that Sir Arthur Irvine's death
precipitated the by-election.
Check out the indisputable source: F.W.S. Craig in "British
Parliamentary Election Results, 1974-1983", published by Parliamentary
Research Services in 1984. Check out page 169. It is highly unlikely
that Craig, the all-time expert on British Parliamentary elections, is
wrong. So, although you were there I would respectfully suggest that
your memory's playing tricks. I mean, I'm "only" 48 now, but I forget
loads of stuff and frequently get confused and muddled. Although
probably not, like Craig, on the causes of this by-election.
There is an interesting footnote to the by-election (held on 29 March
1979) in Craig's book, regarding an Independent candidate, M. Taylor,
who secured 40 votes. Apparently "Taylor claimed that he was duped
into standing by two men he had met in a public house who asked if he
would like to be a National Front candidate. He agreed and apparently
signed the consent to nomination form which was later lodged with a
nomination paper describing him as a 'Gay Liberal'. He took no part in
the campaign but on eve of poll leaflets urging voters to vote 'Gay
Liberal' were distributed in the constituency. The official Liberal
candidate alleged a "dirty tricks" and "smear" campaign against him."
Colin Rosenstiel
Coli...@aol.com () wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
> > Sir Arthur Irvine died (of a long-standing illness) soon after the
> > 1979 GE. His family were scathing about Liverpool Edge Hill Labour
> > Party and the extra stress they caused him during that illness.
> >
> > Had Irvine not resigned short of the GE, perhaps Wareing might have
> > won it in the general meleé (he subsequently went to another
> > Liverpool constituency and won there) and the story might have
> > been completely different. So I hope David offers a prayer for the
> > departed soul of Sir Arthur (the architect of the Liberal success
> > in that constituency) every now and then.
>
> Well, it wasn't quite that simple. It was Sir Arthur's death that
> precipitated the by-election BEFORE the General Election. I have no
> doubt that his loyalty to the Labour Party in general prevented him
> from resigning in the manner described above, despite the increasing
> unpleasantness of the Militant-dominated Liverpool District Labour
> Party.
>
> As an interesting aside, the following appeared in the Guardian, on 1
> March 1974, and it makes clear that the Liberals had already been
> "working" Edge Hill well before the rise of Militant:
Indeed. My first campaigning visit to Liverpool was in the summer of 1972.
--
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/
Colin Rosenstiel
ad...@nospamfulhamreach.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:
> Err, was it not the SDP that won Glasgow Hillhead, the SDP that won
> Crosby, the SDP that won Portsmouth South, the SDP that won
> Greenwich, the SDP that came close in Warrington - were these not
> urban breakthroughs? Of the five SDP MPs elected in 1987, only
> Charles Kennedy won a seat that might be regarded as typically
> "Liberal" - if Robert Maclennan had stayed with Labour, I suspect
> Caithness would still be a Labour/Tory marginal today.
I can't speak for the others but my close observation of Greenwich was
that an SDP candidate was elected on a very effective campaign run by
Liberals, insofar as the distinction is now relevant.
Bob Maclennan was unique. He was the one MP to switch to the SDP who
managed effectively to combine the Labour and Liberal votes in his
constituency in his favour.
Incidentally, for Henry's benefit, there are a few places, of which
Cambridge is one, where the SDP did reach places that Liberals had never
managed to. But Oxbridge academic votes don't win general elections.
David Boothroyd
Coli...@aol.com wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
> >You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG on that - trust me - I was there.
> >Sir Arthur resigned and survived until at least after the by-election,
> >though he
> was clearly (in retrospect) a very ill man.
>
> Well, don't blame me for suggesting that Sir Arthur Irvine's death
> precipitated the by-election.
> Check out the indisputable source: F.W.S. Craig in "British
> Parliamentary Election Results, 1974-1983", published by Parliamentary
> Research Services in 1984. Check out page 169. It is highly unlikely
> that Craig, the all-time expert on British Parliamentary elections, is
> wrong. So, although you were there I would respectfully suggest that
> your memory's playing tricks. I mean, I'm "only" 48 now, but I forget
> loads of stuff and frequently get confused and muddled. Although
> probably not, like Craig, on the causes of this by-election.
Indeed not, as Sir Arthur Irvine died on 15th December 1978.
--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.
David Boothroyd
"Adam Gray" <ad...@nospamfulhamreach.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Incidentally, Owen claimed on his Hardtalk that in 1992 he voted Green at
> that election - it was widely commented at the time that he voted for Major.
Good old Owenite consistency there, as his statement at the time was that
he would be voting Lib Dem in Bow and Poplar, but endorsed the
Conservatives to win the election.
David Boothroyd
Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> The SDP won Greenwich? Hah. Why do certain Liberal turn into bunny-boilers
> to this day at the mention of Rosie Barnes?
Ah, Rosie Barnes, now there was someone who could really stroke a
rabbit.
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
>>You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG on that - trust me - I was there.
>>Sir Arthur resigned and survived until at least after the by-election,
>>though he was clearly (in retrospect) a very ill man.
> Well, don't blame me for suggesting that Sir Arthur Irvine's death
> precipitated the by-election.
I'm not blaming you.
I'm putting you right.
Sir Arthur Irvine (who was my MP) did not die in office.
> Check out the indisputable source: F.W.S. Craig in "British
> Parliamentary Election Results, 1974-1983", published by Parliamentary
> Research Services in 1984. Check out page 169. It is highly unlikely
> that Craig, the all-time expert on British Parliamentary elections, is
> wrong. So, although you were there I would respectfully suggest that
> your memory's playing tricks. I mean, I'm "only" 48 now, but I forget
> loads of stuff and frequently get confused and muddled. Although
> probably not, like Craig, on the causes of this by-election.
If he says that Sir Arthur died whilst still an MP, he is as wrong as you were
to say it, because it simply isn't true. I was there, I was interested and I was
involved.
> There is an interesting footnote to the by-election (held on 29 March
> 1979) in Craig's book, regarding an Independent candidate, M. Taylor,
> who secured 40 votes. Apparently "Taylor claimed that he was duped
> into standing by two men he had met in a public house who asked if he
> would like to be a National Front candidate. He agreed and apparently
> signed the consent to nomination form which was later lodged with a
> nomination paper describing him as a 'Gay Liberal'. He took no part in
> the campaign but on eve of poll leaflets urging voters to vote 'Gay
> Liberal' were distributed in the constituency. The official Liberal
> candidate alleged a "dirty tricks" and "smear" campaign against him."
I certainly remember the "Gay Liberal" candidate controversy.
Adam Gray
news:memo.2006011...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <dq5t5k$jmr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> on Thu, 12 Jan 2006
> 15:38:29 -0000, ad...@nospamfulhamreach.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:
>
> [Greenwich]
>
>> Well why did these overwhelmingly dominant Liberals give the nomination
>> to an SDP member then and not one of the hardworkers you had there?
>
> Because it was their turn. Between the formation of the Alliance and the
> 1983 General Election, the two parties alternated in standing candidates
> in by-elections.
What a splendid way of selecting candidates: sod who's best, as long as it's
"their turn". Could this be emblematic of the real reason why the Alliance
failed?
Adam
Coli...@aol.com
> If he [Craig] says that Sir Arthur died whilst still an MP, he is as wrong as you were
to say it, because it simply isn't true. I was there, I was interested
and I was
involved.
Have you seen David Boothroyd's note above that Sir Arthur died on 15th
December 1978?
Accept it, old chap. One's memory can play funny tricks. F.W.S. Craig
ruled, OK?
David Boothroyd
JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> If he says that Sir Arthur died whilst still an MP, he is as wrong
> as you were to say it, because it simply isn't true. I was there, I
> was interested and I was involved.
Could you tell me why "The Who's Who of British MPs" vol. 4 (published
1981) says on page 186 that Sir Arthur Irvine "Died 15 Dec. 1978"?
Why does "Whitaker's Almanack 1980" say on page 619 in the Obituaries
section "Irvine, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur James, Kt., Q.C., Labour M.P. for
Edge Hill, Liverpool, since 1947, aged 69 - Dec. 15, 1978."?
Why does "The British General Election of 1979" by David Butler and
Dennis Kavanagh say on page 281 ".. but when Sir Arthur [Irvine]
died .."?
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
>>If he [Craig] says that Sir Arthur died whilst still an MP, he is as wrong as you were
> to say it, because it simply isn't true. I was there, I was interested
> and I was involved.
> Have you seen David Boothroyd's note above that Sir Arthur died on 15th
> December 1978?
I have, and whatever differences I may have with him from time to time, I accept
what he says - he is not at all likely to be wrong on it. I had wrongly
remembered that Sir Arthur survived longer than that as an ex-MP (though I as
aware as anyone else in Liverpool at that time of how ill he was).
However, his death in December 1978 does not mean that Sir Arthur Irvine died
whilst an MP. He didn't. He resigned and precipitated the by-election. Four or
five months between the Chiltern Hundreds (especially at that time and in those
conditions for the Labour government of James Callaghan, who were undecided
about the timing of the impending GE) is not out of the way.
> Accept it, old chap. One's memory can play funny tricks. F.W.S. Craig
> ruled, OK?
Not if he denies that Sir Arthur resigned.
JNugent
> JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:
>
>>If he says that Sir Arthur died whilst still an MP, he is as wrong
>>as you were to say it, because it simply isn't true. I was there, I
>>was interested and I was involved.
> Could you tell me why "The Who's Who of British MPs" vol. 4 (published
> 1981) says on page 186 that Sir Arthur Irvine "Died 15 Dec. 1978"?
I was wrong as to his date of death, and you are right on it.
Fair enough.
But I am sure that I am not wrong as to the fact that he resigned from the
Commons before his death. I was on the electoral register for the division. I
voted in that by-election. I had met Sir Arthur once (at the House). I knew
David Alton (as he then was) quite well; he was the local councillor and lived
nearby.
> Why does "Whitaker's Almanack 1980" say on page 619 in the Obituaries
> section "Irvine, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur James, Kt., Q.C., Labour M.P. for
> Edge Hill, Liverpool, since 1947, aged 69 - Dec. 15, 1978."?
Presumably because that was the date of his death. That's what obituaries do.
> Why does "The British General Election of 1979" by David Butler and
> Dennis Kavanagh say on page 281 ".. but when Sir Arthur [Irvine]
> died .."?
For some reason, the media attention seems to have been elsewhere at the time of
Sir Arthur's resignation. Are there any references to the stated intention of
his son to stand in the GE (as an independent)?
John M Ward
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.06...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
> Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > The SDP won Greenwich? Hah. Why do certain Liberal turn into
> > bunny-boilers to this day at the mention of Rosie Barnes?
> Ah, Rosie Barnes, now there was someone who could really stroke a
> rabbit.
These two contributions are obviously some kind of code. It might
be helpful to many here if someone were to explain it.
For our "bunny-fit", so to speak ;-)
--
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
* Oppose electoral fraud, especially through postal votes
* Scrap the ODPM, SEERA, and the Standards Board for England
* Return all local decisions to local people
David Boothroyd
JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:
> David Boothroyd wrote:
> > JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:
> >
> >>If he says that Sir Arthur died whilst still an MP, he is as wrong
> >>as you were to say it, because it simply isn't true. I was there, I
> >>was interested and I was involved.
>
> > Could you tell me why "The Who's Who of British MPs" vol. 4 (published
> > 1981) says on page 186 that Sir Arthur Irvine "Died 15 Dec. 1978"?
>
> I was wrong as to his date of death, and you are right on it.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> But I am sure that I am not wrong as to the fact that he resigned from the
> Commons before his death.
If he did resign then he did it in some very surreptitious way, as he
was neither given the Chiltern Hundreds nor the Manor of Northstead,
the only two offices used for resignation since the 19th century.
JNugent
> In article <6Mydncgrdpc...@pipex.net>,
> JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:
>
>>David Boothroyd wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If he says that Sir Arthur died whilst still an MP, he is as wrong
>>>>as you were to say it, because it simply isn't true. I was there, I
>>>>was interested and I was involved.
>>
>>>Could you tell me why "The Who's Who of British MPs" vol. 4 (published
>>>1981) says on page 186 that Sir Arthur Irvine "Died 15 Dec. 1978"?
>>
>>I was wrong as to his date of death, and you are right on it.
>>
>>Fair enough.
>>
>>But I am sure that I am not wrong as to the fact that he resigned from the
>>Commons before his death.
>
>
> If he did resign then he did it in some very surreptitious way, as he
> was neither given the Chiltern Hundreds nor the Manor of Northstead,
> the only two offices used for resignation since the 19th century.
If I may ask, what is your source for that?
I have been able to find nothing on the web concerning either a resignation or
death in office. Well, nothing conclusive.
JohnLoony
The Liverpool by-election of 1979 is too early for the political
section of my memory, and all I know about it is what I have heard or
read historically. (Therefore I don't have any problem with my memory
playing tricks on me). Having googled for a few minutes, I found this:
http://www.geocities.com/by_elections/79.html#liverpool
which states that death was the cause of the by-election.
Wikipedia doesn't have an entry on Sir Arthur, so more googling may be
necessary to confrim this.
JohnLoony
"The enormous shift towards the left in the Labour Party was a
challenge to the predominantly
right-wing group of MPs who represented Labour in Liverpool at this
stage.
Toxteth, West Derby and Kirkdale constituencies were represented
respectively by arch right
wingers Richard Crawshaw, Eric Ogden and Jimmy Dunn. In the well-worn
tradition of labour
right wingers, having lost the argument on policy, they then stabbed
the labour movement
in the back, joining the SDP. Crawshaw and Dunn jumped before they were
pushed. Eric Ogden, a
'man of principle', only decided to abandon ship after he had lost a
reselection battle by one
vote. The party rank and file in two of the three constituencies
subsequently selected Marxists
as parliamentary candidates, Tony Mulhearn in Toxteth and Terry Fields
in Kirkdale.
They were joined by Terry Harrison, selected for Edge Hill, held by the
Liberal David Alton
since the death of Labour right winger, Sir Arthur Irvine, and Derek
Hatton, who was
selected for Wavertree."
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/liverpool/index.html?l4.htm
There remains the (slight) possibility that he may have resigned and
then died before the by-election anyway. But the date of the death
(15th Dec) would be about right for the date of the by-election (29th
March).
JNugent
It would have taken more a fair bit more than three and a bit months from
vacancy to election day , especially in the atmosphere of the time (which was
fairly special, I can assure you). And this would have been even more marked if
the death occurred during the Christmas recess (which it did). Nationally, the
Labour government was in a quandary as to when to hold the GE (it had been
confidently expected in the autumn of 1978 by the punditry) and locally, the
Labour Party would have dearly wished to avoid a by-election with Alton looking
like the winner. As I remember it, Liberal MPs were pushing in the Commons for
the Edge Hill writ to be moved because it didn't look as though the government
whips were in any hurry to do it (for understandable reasons - everyone knew
that the Lib/Lab Pact was foundering and that a GE was imminent. Not having the
by-election would have been Labour's plainly-preferred option.
The necessary condition for a vacancy arising in a government-held seat in
December 1978 resulting in a by-election in March 1979 was not present - it
would have required a bullish government, eager to fight the by-election. That
condition did not exist.
JNugent
> and this:
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/liverpool/index.html?l4.htm
I saw that. It is er... not reliable as a source for the cause of the
by-election, for various reasons.
> There remains the (slight) possibility that he may have resigned and
> then died before the by-election anyway. But the date of the death
> (15th Dec) would be about right for the date of the by-election (29th
> March).
In some political conditions, yes.
Not in the political conditions that them prevailed (see my other post).
JohnLoony
Edge Hill by-election campaign some time ago in the local library by
reading microfiched copies of the Times. I may have been looking for a
different subject but got sidetracked. I'll have to be anoraky again
and go back to the library to look up the December 1978 copies.
Incidentally, my copy of "Chronology of British Parliamentary
by-elections 1833-1987" (by FWS Craig, of course) also says that it was
caused by death.
(Is it possible that the writ for the by-election was moved and passed
against the wishes of the government?)
JNugent
I don't know whether it is possible for a "hostile" writ motion against the
wishes of the formerly-incumbent party (not necessarily the government) within
such a short time as to enable an election within three months (I doubt it - but
David Boothroyd will have better information on that).
Paul Leake
"Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
> It was extremely unfortunate for the SLD that the first by-election in
> what would have been a winnable seat for the Liberal-SDP alliance took
> place in a seat - possibly the only such one one in the country - where
> there was enough strength in a local branch of Owen's new SDP to
> mount a credible challenge, including most importantly a credible local
> candidate.
Who joined Labour ahead of the 1997 General Election.
The rest of the SDP seem to have gone largely seperate ways - Tony Pelton
still seems to be flying the flag in Catterick, the rest seem to have become
Independents or Tories now.
Paul
Coli...@aol.com
Alton fell out with the Lib Dems a couple of years ago? Can anyone
remember the reason?
James Farrar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Alton
"He was known for his strongly Pro-Life position on abortion, which
went against the pro-choice politics of some in his party. Despite the
official Liberal Democrat position of no-policy on abortion, it was
this that led to his leaving the Liberal Democrat Party in the House
of Lords."
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
Matthew Huntbach
> David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> The SDP won Greenwich? Hah. Why do certain Liberal turn into
>>> bunny-boilers to this day at the mention of Rosie Barnes?
>> Ah, Rosie Barnes, now there was someone who could really stroke a
>> rabbit.
> These two contributions are obviously some kind of code. It might
> be helpful to many here if someone were to explain it.
Rosies Barnes appeared in a party political broadcast, I think it was for
the 1987 general election, in which she was pictured with her family,
including a scene where she was stroking the family's pet rabbit.
Having been elected in a by-election which, as Colin Rosensteil says,
was largely managed by Liberals (and to which many Liberal activists had
been called to assist by being told "She's a Liberal-friendly Social
Democrat"), she not only joined Owen's new SDP, she slagged off Liberals
in a way which suggested a quite stunning lack of awareness of how she managed
to get to be an MP.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> ad...@nospamfulhamreach.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:
>> Err, was it not the SDP that won Glasgow Hillhead, the SDP that won
>> Crosby, the SDP that won Portsmouth South, the SDP that won
>> Greenwich, the SDP that came close in Warrington - were these not
>> urban breakthroughs? Of the five SDP MPs elected in 1987, only
>> Charles Kennedy won a seat that might be regarded as typically
>> "Liberal" - if Robert Maclennan had stayed with Labour, I suspect
>> Caithness would still be a Labour/Tory marginal today.
> I can't speak for the others but my close observation of Greenwich was
> that an SDP candidate was elected on a very effective campaign run by
> Liberals, insofar as the distinction is now relevant.
Those of us who were there need to get it on the record, since, as
comments from the younger contributors to this group show, as these
events recede into the past so the truth is being forgotten, and what the
media wrote about the events - which was completely wrong most of the
time - is being recorded as history.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> "Richard Gadsden" <rgad...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> [Greenwich]
>>> Well why did these overwhelmingly dominant Liberals give the nomination
>>> to an SDP member then and not one of the hardworkers you had there?
>> Because it was their turn. Between the formation of the Alliance and the
>> 1983 General Election, the two parties alternated in standing candidates
>> in by-elections.
> What a splendid way of selecting candidates: sod who's best, as long as it's
> "their turn". Could this be emblematic of the real reason why the Alliance
> failed?
Indeed. Except, of course, this rotation persisted until the merger of the
two parties in 1988, the Greenwich by-election being in 1987. Also,
constituencies were shared out in the two general elections, so that
it was sod who's best there as well - a constituency had to have an SDP or
a Liberal candidate depending on what had been agreed in negotiations.
Much time was wasted in these negotiations, and as you say in some cases
it led to the less suitable candidate being adopted. It looked bizarre
to the electorate, who mostly didn't see much of a distinction
between the Liberals and the SDP, but any public attempt to establish
one or contest allocations was even more damaging since it was seen as
incomprehensible infighting.
This is why I made the point that the foundation of the SDP was not nearly
so much a positive contributor to the development of third party politics
as history now portrays it. The reality was that after the first few months
of impact when the SDP was founded, the absorbing of huge amounts of energy
in getting the two parties to work together and yet maintain separate
organisations, and the strange image this gave to the electorate slowed
things down. Had the Liberal Party been led by a stronger figure who was
more aware of what was happening on the ground, and wasn't more in sympathy
with the SDP than his own party when it came to inter-party differences,
an ultimatum would have been set after the 1983 general election "You have
failed to make an impact, it is senseless to keep on as two parties, you will
merge with us on our terms".
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
Yes. As time went by, Alton began to devote more and more of his time and
attention to the anti-abortion issue. The strange point was reached where
I as a Liberal and a Catholic was being asked by people who knew my
politics but not my religion "How can you be in the same party as that
anti-abortionist David Alton?" and by people who knew by religion but
not my politics "How can you be in the party led by the initiator of
the Abortion Act, David Steel?". Towards the end of his time as MP,
Alton gave the apperarance of being an anti-abortion campaigner who
occasionally did things for the Liberal Democrats rather than vice versa.
Although the Liberal Democrats did not adopt an official pro-abortion
policy, there was some policy adopted which Alton thought on technical
grounds implied it, and he chose these grounds to leave the Liberal Democrats.
It needs to be said, since many now wrongly assume that anyone who is
anti-abortion must hold the package of views associated with the American
Christian right, that in most aspects Alton was firmly to the left
of the party.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> Slow and sure the Liberal approach was, and it was made slower by all the
>> arguments with the SDP during the 1980s who thought they knew how to do
>> it and could teach the Liberals a few tricks, and spent 8 years finding
>> out they were wrong. But if you look at where the Liberal Democrats have
>> MPs now, it worked.
> So.. er.. how many other Lib/Lib-Dem MPs (whether of the able, charismatic
> sort, or of the more normal Lib/Lib-Dem non-charismatic,
> lacking-in-any-particular-ability-except-whinging sort) were elected in
> Liverpool by dint of the hard work of what you call their "slow and sure"
> method?
Many of the Liberal Democrat MPs in Parliament at present were elected for
constituencies where the party had built up its strength in local government
first before making a successful challenge for the Parliamentary
constituency. Admitedly, the technique seems to have been less successful
in Liverpool than it has been elsewhere, though even in many of the other
places there has been a long time lag between a majority being won in local
elections and the parliamentary seats being won.
Matthew Huntbach
Tim Roll-Pickering
> Towards the end of his time as MP,
> Alton gave the apperarance of being an anti-abortion campaigner who
> occasionally did things for the Liberal Democrats rather than vice versa.
Hasn't he announced his intention to stand down and leave the Lib Dems after
the next election as early as late 1992?
Matthew Huntbach
> "Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> Which is the point I ws making. While the SDP was a flash-in-the-pan,
>> hoping to make it with a national swing, the Liberals were busy building up
>> local strength. The SDP and national commentators just did not get it, to them
>> politics was all about the Westminster bubble, how the bubble appeared to
>> the voters, and the national swing this would bring about.
> Well duh - yes - because the Liberals had been around for a couple of
> centuries give or take, and the SDP was formed in 1981. So obviously there
> couldn't have been a history of SDP activism anywhere. It remains the case
> that the SDP was a modern party that left the Liberals trailing in terms of
> its presentation and PR - they looked moderate, dynamic and thrusting,
> whereas the Liberals had an different, laidback, fuzzy, "nice but
> irrelevant" image; and of course until 1983 given the defections the SDP was
> a far LARGER parliamentary party than the Liberals - and we've seen in the
> last few weeks how important parliamentary parties are even when they don't
> have formal stakes in leadership elections...
Er, yes, the SDP had more seats when its seats almost all came from
defectors from the Labour Party. When it came to actually winmning seats in
elections, it failed.
>> Slow and sure the Liberal approach was, and it was made slower by all the
>> arguments with the SDP during the 1980s who thought they knew how to do
>> it and could teach the Liberals a few tricks, and spent 8 years finding
>> out they were wrong. But if you look at where the Liberal Democrats have
>> MPs now, it worked.
> I suggest that it was the lessons learned by the Lib Dems from the SDP that
> made the more significant impact...
In which case why was it that throughout the 1980s, it was the Liberals
not the SDP who were more successful in actually winning elections?
Look at the tiny number of SDP councillors there were at the time and
the much bigger number of Liberal councillors.
In many ways, the biggest difference between the Liberals and the SDP
was in presentation and techniques rather than policy. The SDP believed
that a strong central national image, "dynamic and thrusting" as you
put it, was enough to win - people would come flooding to the party because
of this national image. What the Liberals had realised is that many people
are alienated by this image of politics as being some remote ad-man
manipulated imagery. Therefore, more homely locally based campaiging which
put a human faced on politics and showed people how it was linked to
issues of direct immediate concern to them, was an alternative way of
building up support. It may have seemed "laidback" and "fuzzy" to you,
but it worked, and worked particularly well in bucking the problems
a third party faces in the first-past-the-post electoral system.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> Well duh - yes - because the Liberals had been around for a couple of
> centuries give or take, and the SDP was formed in 1981.
An additional point is that to a large extent the Liberals had *not*
been around for centuries. The Liberal Party was almost wiped out in
the 1950s. While it helped for credibility purposes that the Liberal
Party could claim these historical roots, the Liberal Party in 1981
at the time of the foundation of the SDP had been almost completely
rebuilt by activists who were developing new ways of campaigning using
modern technology (the arrival of cheap small-scale printing) and
experimenting with a different model of political party appropriate
for the late 20th century.
Matthew Huntbach
Mike Drew
One of the biggest arguments between the SDP and the Liberals was how
the Candidates were to be selected. The SDP wanted to allocated seats
while Liberals wanted it to be based on local strength. In the Western
Counties area where I was on the negotiating team the SDP were
determined to fight Bath which the Liberals had built an effective
organistion. They got there wish but were unable to do anything. Only
after merger when a genuine Liberal, my Avon colleague Don Foster was
selected did we win with an effective local campaign in 92.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> One of the biggest arguments between the SDP and the Liberals was how the
> Candidates were to be selected. The SDP wanted to allocated seats while
> Liberals wanted it to be based on local strength. In the Western Counties
> area where I was on the negotiating team the SDP were determined to fight
> Bath which the Liberals had built an effective organistion. They got there
> wish but were unable to do anything. Only after merger when a genuine
> Liberal, my Avon colleague Don Foster was selected did we win with an
> effective local campaign in 92.
Yes, that clearly demonstrates the issues. The SDP believed that
seats were won by having the right sort of national image and by
a national swing. Their leaders, coming from the Labour Party, had been
used to politics working this way, they had no concept of the idea
that votes might actually have to be worked for locally. The SDP's local
members were new to politics, so thought the same - they also believed
what the media was telling them that it was the SDP that was the driving
force, that the Liberals did not know what they were doing, and all that
was needed to sweep the country was for Liberals to stand down and let
the SDP show them how to win.
However, they very quickly abandoned the idea that there was some
separate sort of SDP voter they might appeal to. If there was, there
would surely be plenty of constituencies where this SDP voter lived
but where there was a small Liberal vote. No, when they wanted "half the
winnable seats" they meant "winnable" in terms of "high previous
Liberal vote". So, yes, they demanded the right to nominate their
candidate in places like Bath. They had no concept of the idea that in
places like this there was a high Liberal vote because Liberal activists
had worked to build it. Rather they just assumed that it was just
something that was there and would naturally increase in line with
the national swing. So they doubly insulted Liberal activists, firstly
by denying the hard work they had done to make the seat winnable,
secondly by wanting to take over, without having done anything for it,
the fruits of that work.
Liberals were handicapped in arguing against this because any sort of
argument that became public would be dismissed as "infighting" and would
look bad, and because media coverage of the Alliance was pushing the
same line that the SDP was the dominant and winning factor in it, and
that Liberals should retreat to the sidelines. The Liberal Party was also
led by someone who, having not come up through the Liberal activist ranks,
didn't understand these points either, and who was more personally
sympathetic to the SDP than he was to his own party, so he was of no use
at all in defending the Liberal Party's ground.
I think what Mike says proves my point - the influence of the SDP has been
way overrated in accounts of third party growth in the 1980s, and it may
actually served to have slowed it down.
Matthew Huntbach
JohnLoony
JohnLoony wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
> > David Boothroyd wrote:
> > > In article <6Mydncgrdpc...@pipex.net>,
> > > JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > > If he did resign then he did it in some very surreptitious way, as he
> > > was neither given the Chiltern Hundreds nor the Manor of Northstead,
> > > the only two offices used for resignation since the 19th century.
> >
> > If I may ask, what is your source for that?
> >
> > I have been able to find nothing on the web concerning either a resignation or
> > death in office. Well, nothing conclusive.
>
>
> The Liverpool by-election of 1979 is too early for the political
> section of my memory, and all I know about it is what I have heard or
> read historically. (Therefore I don't have any problem with my memory
> playing tricks on me). Having googled for a few minutes, I found this:
I have just got back from my local library - the Daily Telegraph
obituary of Sir Arthur Irvine (16th December 1978) refers to him as an
MP, and says that he had a prolonged disagreement with his local party.
He fell out with them 18 months earlier, and *threatened* to resign
and cause a by-election in May 1978.
"Who Was Who" (1971 to 1980) and the Dictionary of National Biography
both refer to him as having been the MP for Edge Hill "since" whenever
(the implication being that he served as MP until his death). I did
not find any references to any statement that he actually resigned as
an MP before his death, in any of the sources I looked in.
I think you must have been misremembering his disagreement as if he had
actually resigned already, rather than merely threatened to.
Adam Gray
Sure, but so did the Liberals...
>> I suggest that it was the lessons learned by the Lib Dems from the SDP
>> that
>> made the more significant impact...
>
> In which case why was it that throughout the 1980s, it was the Liberals
> not the SDP who were more successful in actually winning elections?
> Look at the tiny number of SDP councillors there were at the time and
> the much bigger number of Liberal councillors.
Could it be because the Liberals were (by far?) the larger party and thus
fielded more candidates, in parts of the world with more of a tradition of
electing Liberals?
> In many ways, the biggest difference between the Liberals and the SDP
> was in presentation and techniques rather than policy. The SDP believed
> that a strong central national image, "dynamic and thrusting" as you
> put it, was enough to win - people would come flooding to the party
> because
> of this national image.
> What the Liberals had realised is that many people
> are alienated by this image of politics as being some remote ad-man
> manipulated imagery.
Yeah, it's the same argument used by the Greens - but it's rubbish, insofar
as you will indeed alienate some by this form of presentation, but you win
more than you lose and look credible into the bargain.
>Therefore, more homely locally based campaiging which
> put a human faced on politics and showed people how it was linked to
> issues of direct immediate concern to them, was an alternative way of
> building up support. It may have seemed "laidback" and "fuzzy" to you,
> but it worked, and worked particularly well in bucking the problems
> a third party faces in the first-past-the-post electoral system.
It didn't work! How can you say it worked - sod by-elections - you'd have
won them whatever your image was if the party in government was unpopular -
even now you're winnning a tiny amount of seats - 62 MPs - ooh, only leaves
580 odd not represented by Lib Dems...
Adam
Adam Gray
news:It18G...@bath.ac.uk...
> One of the biggest arguments between the SDP and the Liberals was how the
> Candidates were to be selected. The SDP wanted to allocated seats while
> Liberals wanted it to be based on local strength. In the Western Counties
> area where I was on the negotiating team the SDP were determined to fight
> Bath which the Liberals had built an effective organistion. They got there
> wish but were unable to do anything. Only after merger when a genuine
> Liberal, my Avon colleague Don Foster was selected did we win with an
> effective local campaign in 92.
Well again, how much of this is entirely disingenuous. You cannot possibly
claim that Malcolm Dean (the SDP candidate in Bath in 1987) was, in terms of
his credentials, an identikit Liberal (or Lib Dem) candidate - so the fact
he was SDP cannot in itself have been the reason you didn't win. Could the
fact the Conservatives won landslide victories in 1983 and 1987 have
slightly more relevance to the reason Bath did not fall into your lap?
Would you really not have won Bath in 1992 had Malcolm Dean been your
candidate then? I suspect not.
Adam
Tim Roll-Pickering
>>> I don't think things would have been very different with the
>>> third party vote in the 1980s had the SDP never been founded.
>> Would the Labour defections have taken place, tipping the balance in the
>> party and bringing media attention to third party politics?
> On its foundation, the SDP claimed that it would be able to reach and
> win over Labour votes that the Liberals couldn't get. It never managed
> to do this. Had it done what it claimed, it would not have asked for its
> share of "winnable seats" meaning seats where the Liberals had existing
> strength.
So where did the Alliance get its votes from, given that the Conservative
share barely shifted in the 1980s and the Labour share dropped heavily?
Matthew Huntbach
You would need to present evidnce that where the SDP fielded a
candidate there was a bigger swing away from Labour than where the
Liberals fielded a candidate.
When the SDP was founded, there was a genuine belief, albeit one that
lasted only a few weeks, that it would be a "Labour Party Mark II",
and thus would pick up seats that were previously strong Labour.
That didn't happen, did it?
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> "Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> In which case why was it that throughout the 1980s, it was the Liberals
>> not the SDP who were more successful in actually winning elections?
>> Look at the tiny number of SDP councillors there were at the time and
>> the much bigger number of Liberal councillors.
> Could it be because the Liberals were (by far?) the larger party and thus
> fielded more candidates, in parts of the world with more of a tradition of
> electing Liberals?
If the Liberals were "by far the larger party", that rather goes against
the belief that in the 1980s it was the SDP that was dominating the
Alliance, and rather supports my thesis that it was the Liberals doing
the work and the SDP getting the credit.
You will also find that there was a big growth in Liberal councillors
in many parts of the country, not just those with a tradition of
electing Liberal councillors (of which there weren't that many).
>> What the Liberals had realised is that many people
>> are alienated by this image of politics as being some remote ad-man
>> manipulated imagery.
> Yeah, it's the same argument used by the Greens - but it's rubbish, insofar
> as you will indeed alienate some by this form of presentation, but you win
> more than you lose and look credible into the bargain.
It works under the-first-past-the-post system. That's the point - we
were playing the third party game. It has to be played by different
tactics than the Labour v. Conservative game. The SDP really only had the
one chance, and they blew it. A party which works by national image
and hopes to win seats on a national swing can't work by building up
support slowly.
>> Therefore, more homely locally based campaiging which
>> put a human faced on politics and showed people how it was linked to
>> issues of direct immediate concern to them, was an alternative way of
>> building up support. It may have seemed "laidback" and "fuzzy" to you,
>> but it worked, and worked particularly well in bucking the problems
>> a third party faces in the first-past-the-post electoral system.
> It didn't work! How can you say it worked - sod by-elections - you'd have
> won them whatever your image was if the party in government was unpopular -
> even now you're winnning a tiny amount of seats - 62 MPs - ooh, only leaves
> 580 odd not represented by Lib Dems...
62 MPs, and this time most of them not won as lucky by-elections and then
held onto. If you consider how British politics really was a complete
two party system until the 1970s, and the barriers the electoral system
places on any thord party breakthrough, that is quite an achievement.
Matthew Huntbach
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> In many ways, the biggest difference between the Liberals and the SDP
> was in presentation and techniques rather than policy. The SDP believed
> that a strong central national image, "dynamic and thrusting" as you
> put it, was enough to win - people would come flooding to the party because
> of this national image.
And they did. Look at the huge rise in share of vote between 1979 and
1983, nearly a 12% increase -- biggest liberal vote share since 1923.
Now, under FPTP, all those votes didn't get converted into seats, but
they were real votes by real people.
> What the Liberals had realised is that many people
> are alienated by this image of politics as being some remote ad-man
> manipulated imagery. Therefore, more homely locally based campaiging which
> put a human faced on politics and showed people how it was linked to
> issues of direct immediate concern to them, was an alternative way of
> building up support. It may have seemed "laidback" and "fuzzy" to you,
> but it worked, and worked particularly well in bucking the problems
> a third party faces in the first-past-the-post electoral system.
We've done much better at winning seats since those days, yes, but at
the 2005 election, we still got a lower vote share than in 1983. If
people were alienated by this image of politics then, something greater
must be alienating them now!
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> When the SDP was founded, there was a genuine belief, albeit one that
> lasted only a few weeks, that it would be a "Labour Party Mark II",
> and thus would pick up seats that were previously strong Labour.
> That didn't happen, did it?
If the SDP appealed to elements of Labour, then it wouldn't necessarily
do well in strong Labour seats, which tend to have one sort of
socio-economic profile.
It could be argued that if the SDP meant that 10% of people with
centrist views switched from Labour to SDP, what you would see is a lot
of seats where the Liberals were doing well now being won and a lot of
seats where the Liberals hadn't been doing well now getting a mediocre
third party vote.
--
Henry
Richard Gadsden
That's not accurate; he was never a member of the Liberal Democrat
Parliamentary Party in the House of Lords; he was appointed as a
cross-bench peer by John Major.
I've corrected wikipedia.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
David Boothroyd
"Paul Leake" <pa...@durge.org> wrote:
>
> The rest of the SDP seem to have gone largely seperate ways - Tony Pelton
> still seems to be flying the flag in Catterick, the rest seem to have become
> Independents or Tories now.
There are, I think, some local SDP branches in Bridlington and Neath.
--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.
David Boothroyd
"JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
?
> Interesting. I seem to remember reading a whole lot of stuff about the
> Edge Hill by-election campaign some time ago in the local library by
> reading microfiched copies of the Times. I may have been looking for a
> different subject but got sidetracked. I'll have to be anoraky again
> and go back to the library to look up the December 1978 copies.
I think it unlikely that you were reading microfiched copies of The
Times as it was not being printed from November 1978 until November
1979.
> Incidentally, my copy of "Chronology of British Parliamentary
> by-elections 1833-1987" (by FWS Craig, of course) also says that it was
> caused by death.
>
> (Is it possible that the writ for the by-election was moved and passed
> against the wishes of the government?)
It is possible, but it didn't happen.
David Boothroyd
rgad...@blueyonder.co.uk (Richard Gadsden) wrote:
> In article <ogses119dnng84ins...@4ax.com> on Fri, 13 Jan
> 2006 09:26:02 +0000, james.s...@gmail.com (James Farrar) wrote:
> > On 13 Jan 2006 01:15:55 -0800, Coli...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >Changing the subject somewhat, am I right in believing David (now Lord)
> > >Alton fell out with the Lib Dems a couple of years ago? Can anyone
> > >remember the reason?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Alton
> >
> > "He was known for his strongly Pro-Life position on abortion, which
> > went against the pro-choice politics of some in his party. Despite the
> > official Liberal Democrat position of no-policy on abortion, it was
> > this that led to his leaving the Liberal Democrat Party in the House
> > of Lords."
>
> That's not accurate; he was never a member of the Liberal Democrat
> Parliamentary Party in the House of Lords; he was appointed as a
> cross-bench peer by John Major.
As you've written, it's correct. Alton never took the Lib Dem whip in
the Lords.
> I've corrected wikipedia.
And in the process you've told me who's been correcting the grammar
of my page.
Now if only you'd had 150 edits by 9th January.
Peter Smyth
"JNugent" <not.t...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:0KWdnWLYLOE...@pipex.net...
>> If he did resign then he did it in some very surreptitious way, as he
>> was neither given the Chiltern Hundreds nor the Manor of Northstead,
>> the only two offices used for resignation since the 19th century.
>
> If I may ask, what is your source for that?
>
> I have been able to find nothing on the web concerning either a
> resignation or death in office. Well, nothing conclusive.
The following House of Commons factsheet
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/p11.pdf gives a list of all MPs
that have resigned since 1970 and does not include Irvine.
Peter Smyth
JohnLoony
David Boothroyd wrote:
> I think it unlikely that you were reading microfiched copies of The
> Times as it was not being printed from November 1978 until November
> 1979.
YIVIIS: The library's files of The Times microfiches have got the Daily
Telegraph instead for the period in question. I was reminded of the
fact when I went again today.
(tangentially) On the subject of Liverpool, why did the Conservative
party not have a candidate in Liverpool (Scotland Exchange) in Oct
1974? My book says that the result was
R. Parry (Lab) 15,154
P.S.C.Rankin (Ind Con) 2,234
P. Rockett (Lib) 944
R. O'Hara (Comm) 556
[P.S. "YIVIIS" = "Yea, indeed, verily; it is so"]
Tim Roll-Pickering
> (tangentially) On the subject of Liverpool, why did the Conservative
> party not have a candidate in Liverpool (Scotland Exchange) in Oct
> 1974? My book says that the result was
> R. Parry (Lab) 15,154
> P.S.C.Rankin (Ind Con) 2,234
> P. Rockett (Lib) 944
> R. O'Hara (Comm) 556
Could it be that they were backing Rankin rather than waste resources on one
of their own?
Or did Rankin fall out with his party after it was too late to get a
replacement? Or maybe he screwed up his nomination papers and put his
occupation as his description.
Colin Rosenstiel
not.t...@isp.com (JNugent) wrote:
> It would have taken more a fair bit more than three and a bit months
> from vacancy to election day , especially in the atmosphere of the
> time (which was fairly special, I can assure you). And this would
> have been even more marked if the death occurred during the Christmas
> recess (which it did). Nationally, the Labour government was in a
> quandary as to when to hold the GE (it had been confidently expected
> in the autumn of 1978 by the punditry) and locally, the Labour Party
> would have dearly wished to avoid a by-election with Alton looking
> like the winner. As I remember it, Liberal MPs were pushing in the
> Commons for the Edge Hill writ to be moved because it didn't look as
> though the government whips were in any hurry to do it (for
> understandable reasons - everyone knew that the Lib/Lab Pact was
> foundering and that a GE was imminent. Not having the by-election
> would have been Labour's plainly-preferred option.
The Lib-Lab pact was more than foundering by then. It was ended in the
Autumn of 1978.
Callaghan was able to carry on because the SNP and Plaid Cymru didn't
want the government to fall before the Scottish and Welsh devolution
referendums in early 1979.
--
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/
Colin Rosenstiel
m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, John M Ward wrote:
> > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> The SDP won Greenwich? Hah. Why do certain Liberal turn into
> >>> bunny-boilers to this day at the mention of Rosie Barnes?
>
> >> Ah, Rosie Barnes, now there was someone who could really stroke a
> >> rabbit.
>
> > These two contributions are obviously some kind of code. It might
> > be helpful to many here if someone were to explain it.
>
> Rosies Barnes appeared in a party political broadcast, I think it was
> for the 1987 general election, in which she was pictured with her
> family, including a scene where she was stroking the family's pet
> rabbit.
>
> Having been elected in a by-election which, as Colin Rosensteil says,
Write out 100 times "i" before "e", except after "c"! :-)
> was largely managed by Liberals (and to which many Liberal activists
> had been called to assist by being told "She's a Liberal-friendly Social
> Democrat"), she not only joined Owen's new SDP, she slagged off
> Liberals in a way which suggested a quite stunning lack of awareness
> of how she managed to get to be an MP.
That sort of ignorance seems to be endemic in the House, with a few
honourable exceptions in all parties.
Colin Rosenstiel
m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
> When the SDP was founded, there was a genuine belief, albeit one that
> lasted only a few weeks, that it would be a "Labour Party Mark II",
> and thus would pick up seats that were previously strong Labour.
> That didn't happen, did it?
Actually, it did happen, but only in Caithness and Sutherland.
David Boothroyd
"JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> (tangentially) On the subject of Liverpool, why did the Conservative
> party not have a candidate in Liverpool (Scotland Exchange) in Oct
> 1974?
What happened was that Philip Rankin, who was Chairman and Secretary
of Liverpool Scotland Exchange Conservative Association, was selected
as their candidate. However, Rankin was a strong Powellite (and the
area office had warned the local association that he would probably
prove unacceptable to Central Office), and he was repudiated by the
Conservatives nationally. It did not make sense in such a
constituency to put up anyone else, so he fought as an unofficial
candidate.
David Boothroyd
JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:
> JohnLoony wrote:
>
> > (Is it possible that the writ for the by-election was moved and passed
> > against the wishes of the government?)
>
> wishes of the formerly-incumbent party (not necessarily the government)
> within such a short time as to enable an election within three months
> (I doubt it - but David Boothroyd will have better information on that).
There's no technical restriction on who moves the writ for a byelection
but it is custom and practice to leave it to the Chief Whip of the
party to which the late member belonged. It's also custom and practice,
as endorsed by the Speaker's Conference of 1973, that the writ be moved
within three months of the vacancy occurring.
There have been no actual instances of another party taking over and
successfully moving a writ, but there have been attempts. The
Conservative Party attempted to move the writ for the byelection in
Newark in 1999 when it appeared there was a vacancy (though that was
within the three months, and was probably motivated by an attempt
to embarrass the Labour Party). There are also several occasions
when moving the writ has been used as a tactic to take up time,
the last of which was Dennis Skinner's attempt to move the writ for
the Richmond (Yorkshire) byelection in January 1989.
David Boothroyd
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.06...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
> m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
>
> > When the SDP was founded, there was a genuine belief, albeit one that
> > lasted only a few weeks, that it would be a "Labour Party Mark II",
> > and thus would pick up seats that were previously strong Labour.
> > That didn't happen, did it?
>
> Actually, it did happen, but only in Caithness and Sutherland.
I don't think that was ever "strong Labour".
David Boothroyd
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
>
> Autumn of 1978.
Technically it lapsed at the end of July 1978, and was never
renewed.
> Callaghan was able to carry on because the SNP and Plaid Cymru didn't
> want the government to fall before the Scottish and Welsh devolution
> referendums in early 1979.
And because he gave more seats to Northern Ireland, which ensured
that the Unionists would not bring him down while the Bill was still
pending. Their support came at the price of the loss of support
from the SDLP member Gerry Fitt in the final confidence vote and of
the resignation of some PPSs and Jock Stallard, a junior Minister.
Trying to support a minority government and make coalitions is
difficult under the Westminster system, which is why some of us
like an electoral system which makes them less likely.
Tim Roll-Pickering
> There have been no actual instances of another party taking over and
> successfully moving a writ, but there have been attempts. The
> Conservative Party attempted to move the writ for the byelection in
> Newark in 1999 when it appeared there was a vacancy (though that was
> within the three months, and was probably motivated by an attempt
> to embarrass the Labour Party). There are also several occasions
> when moving the writ has been used as a tactic to take up time,
> the last of which was Dennis Skinner's attempt to move the writ for
> the Richmond (Yorkshire) byelection in January 1989.
Wasn't there a time when the Shadow Chancellor tabled a question and was
given the entire Budget Speech as the response in order to prevent someone
moving a writ?
Colin Rosenstiel
da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) wrote:
> In article <memo.2006011...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk>,
> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.06...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
> > m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
> >
> > > When the SDP was founded, there was a genuine belief, albeit one
> > > that lasted only a few weeks, that it would be a "Labour Party Mark
> > > II", and thus would pick up seats that were previously strong
Labour.
> > > That didn't happen, did it?
> >
> > Actually, it did happen, but only in Caithness and Sutherland.
>
> I don't think that was ever "strong Labour".
Bob Maclennan had held it since 1966 and, unlike most of the Labour to
SDP defectors, brought most of the Labour vote with him.
Maybe John Cartwright did something similar in Woolwich, thinking about
it some more.
John M Ward
Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, John M Ward wrote:
> > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>> The SDP won Greenwich? Hah. Why do certain Liberal turn into
> >>> bunny-boilers to this day at the mention of Rosie Barnes?
> >> Ah, Rosie Barnes, now there was someone who could really
> >> stroke a rabbit.
> > These two contributions are obviously some kind of code. It
> > might be helpful to many here if someone were to explain it.
> Rosies Barnes appeared in a party political broadcast, I think it
> was for the 1987 general election, in which she was pictured with
> her family, including a scene where she was stroking the family's
> pet rabbit.
...As one does, I believe (I've never kept any rabbits, but would if
I had a family and they wanted one or more).
> Having been elected in a by-election which, as Colin Rosensteil
> says, was largely managed by Liberals (and to which many Liberal
> activists had been called to assist by being told "She's a
> Liberal-friendly Social Democrat"), she not only joined Owen's
> new SDP, she slagged off...
This is a colloquialism, I believe.
> ...Liberals in a way which suggested a quite stunning lack of
> awareness of how she managed to get to be an MP.
So, a not so "rosie" approach, then (or political career... ) though
the original reference is still not completely clear. It is
obviously a LibDem insider thing, though it might well be known more
widely than that by now. If it wasn't nefore, it probably has
become so as a result of this thread ;-)
--
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
* Oppose electoral fraud, especially through postal votes
* Scrap the ODPM, SEERA, and the Standards Board for England
* Return all local decisions to local people
Mike Drew
We might have done better as we had a candidate who had been building up
a local vote. The many local Liberals were demotivated by having another
candidate whom they did not have any say in, being imposed. The most
important factor in a Liberal/ Lib Dem winning a seat is the impression
by the voters in the constituency that the seat can be won. This is
usually done by being more visible on the ground by local campaigning.
>
> Adam
>
>
David Boothroyd
Sounds like a version of what happened in 1989. Jim Sillars insisted
on raising a bogus point of order and became disruptive, being named
and then suspended from the service of the House for five days. He
refused to go and the SNP continued to disrupt and the Deputy Speaker
could not call the Budget speech.
Therefore Neil Kinnock asked a private notice question about the
economy to Nigel Lawson, and Lawson gave the Budget speech in
response to this question. (This was on 14th March 1989 and is all
recorded in the Hansard for that day, although the Parliamentary
website has gone rubbish today)
Tim Roll-Pickering
>> Wasn't there a time when the Shadow Chancellor tabled a question and was
>> given the entire Budget Speech as the response in order to prevent
>> someone moving a writ?
> Sounds like a version of what happened in 1989. Jim Sillars insisted
> on raising a bogus point of order and became disruptive, being named
> and then suspended from the service of the House for five days. He
> refused to go and the SNP continued to disrupt and the Deputy Speaker
> could not call the Budget speech.
> Therefore Neil Kinnock asked a private notice question about the
> economy to Nigel Lawson, and Lawson gave the Budget speech in
> response to this question. (This was on 14th March 1989 and is all
> recorded in the Hansard for that day, although the Parliamentary
> website has gone rubbish today)
How exactly did that work? Surely if the SNP were being disruptive the House
would either grind to a halt or they'd have all been expelled? How exactly
did asking a private notice question change things?
David Boothroyd
"Tim Roll-Pickering" <T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
Managed to get the Hansard site working. See
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm198889/cmhansrd/1
989-03-14/Debate-1.html>
You're right - Sillars was attempting to move the writ for the Vale
of Glamorgan byelection, and so Kinnock arranged to ask a PNQ because
it took priority over a motion for a writ. However, Sillars refused
to take his defeat lying down and insisted on raising a Point of Order
which the Speaker refused to accept. Eventually, Sillars was suspended
(after a division, 376 - 16) and the Budget speech went ahead as a
response to the PNQ.
Richard Gadsden
Jan 2006 20:51:26 +0000, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd)
wrote:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198889/cmhansrd/1989-03-14/Deba
te-1.html seems to be the relevant page.
Richard Gadsden
Private notice questions are before the consideration of points of order.
Otherwise the SNP could have divided the House repeatedly on points of
order before the budget statement could be made.
Tim Roll-Pickering
> Managed to get the Hansard site working. See
> <http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm198889/cmhansrd/1989-03-14/Debate-1.html>
> You're right - Sillars was attempting to move the writ for the Vale
> of Glamorgan byelection, and so Kinnock arranged to ask a PNQ because
> it took priority over a motion for a writ. However, Sillars refused
> to take his defeat lying down and insisted on raising a Point of Order
> which the Speaker refused to accept. Eventually, Sillars was suspended
> (after a division, 376 - 16) and the Budget speech went ahead as a
> response to the PNQ.
Sounds good - though any idea when the Vale of Glamorgan relocated to
Scotland? ;-)
The Nos seem to be a mixture of the Labour usual suspects, the SNP, Plaid,
the SDLP and Ulster Unionists - anyone know what their gripes were?
Paul Leake
<Coli...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1137143755....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Changing the subject somewhat, am I right in believing David (now Lord)
> Alton fell out with the Lib Dems a couple of years ago? Can anyone
> remember the reason?
He did indeed - he endorsed a (pro-life) Tory candidate for Durham City last
year.
Paul
Matthew Huntbach
> da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) wrote:
>> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
>>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.06...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
>>> m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
>>>> When the SDP was founded, there was a genuine belief, albeit one
>>>> that lasted only a few weeks, that it would be a "Labour Party Mark
>>>> II", and thus would pick up seats that were previously strong
>>>> Labour. That didn't happen, did it?
>>> Actually, it did happen, but only in Caithness and Sutherland.
>> I don't think that was ever "strong Labour".
> Bob Maclennan had held it since 1966 and, unlike most of the Labour to
> SDP defectors, brought most of the Labour vote with him.
>
> Maybe John Cartwright did something similar in Woolwich, thinking about
> it some more.
Yes, Caithness and Sutherland was hardly a typical Labour constituency.
Like the other Highlands and Islands constituencies, personal factors
play a much bigger role in elections than the more normal constituency.
Woolwich, so far as I recall, was the only case where a Labour MP managed
to pull across enough of his votes to be re-elected as an SDP MP.
Apart from Owen himself I guess.
Matthew Huntbach