Bromley and Chislehurst byelection result
David Boothroyd
Cause: Death of Rt. Hon. M.E. Forth (C) on 17th May 2006
Date of poll: 29th June 2006
Electorate: 72,206
Valid Votes: 29,060
Turnout: 40.2%
Rejected votes: 53
(Want of Official Mark 4, Voting for more than one candidate 20,
Writing or mark by which voter could be identified 2, Unmarked or
void for uncertainty 27)
Declared at: 02:41 (after batch recount)
Benjamin Peter ABBOTTS L Dem 10,988 37.8
Anne Emily Jane BELSEY Ind - Money Ref 33 0.1
John Sydney CARTWRIGHT MRLP 132 0.5
Nigel Paul FARAGE UKIP 2,347 8.1
Mrs. Ann Christine GARRETT GP 811 2.8
Nicholas (Nick) Alexandros HADZIANNIS Ind 65 0.2
John Stanley Charles David HEMMING-CLARK Ind C 442 1.5
Robert James MacGillivray NEILL C 11,629 40.0
Rachel Jane REEVES Lab 1,925 6.6
Steven Thomas UNCLES EDP 212 0.7
Paul WINNETT NF 476 1.6
RECENT ELECTORAL HISTORY
Election Electors T'out Candidate Party Votes % Ch.%
1992 73,653 79.0 NOTIONAL ELECTION C 36,028 62.0
L Dem 10,370 17.8
Lab 10,027 17.2
Oths 1,725* 3.0
maj. 25,658 44.1
1997 71,210 74.1 *Rt. Hon. M.E. Forth C 24,428 46.3 -15.6
R.J. Yeldham Lab 13,310 25.2 + 8.0
P.J.H. Booth L Dem 12,530 23.8 + 5.9
R.M. Bryant UKIP 1,176* 2.2
Mrs. F.M. Speed GP 640* 1.2
M.R. Stoneman NF 369* 0.7
G. Aitman L 285* 0.6
maj. 11,118 21.1
2001 67,183 64.3 Rt. Hon. M.E. Forth C 21,412 49.6 + 3.2
Mrs. S.A. Polydorou Lab 12,375 28.6 + 3.4
G.D.S. Payne L Dem 8,180 18.9 - 4.8
R.M. Bryant UKIP 1,264* 2.9 + 0.8
maj. 9,037 21.0
2005 71,137 64.9 Rt. Hon. M.E. Forth C 23,583 51.1 + 1.6
Miss R.J. Reeves Lab 10,241 22.2 - 6.4
P.R. Brooks L Dem 9,368 20.3 + 1.4
D.N. Hooper UKIP 1,475* 3.2 + 0.3
Mrs. A.C. Garrett GP 1,470* 3.2
maj. 13,342 28.9
(Death)
2006 72,206 40.2 R.J.M. Neill C 11,629 40.0 -11.1
(29/6) B.P. Abbotts Lab 10,988 37.8 +17.5
N.P. Farage UKIP 2,347 8.1 + 4.9
Miss R.J. Reeves Lab 1,925 6.6 -15.6
Mrs. A.C. Garrett GP 811* 2.8 - 0.4
P. Winnett NF 476* 1.6
J.S.C.D. Hemming -
Clark Ind C 442* 1.5
S.T. Uncles EDP 212* 0.7
J.S. Cartwright MRLP 132* 0.5
N.A. Hadziannis Ind 65* 0.2
Mrs. A.E.J. Belsey Ind 33* 0.1
maj. 641 2.2
Notes:-
2006: Belsey was the candidate of the Money Reform Party, which
she had formed.
Candidates' Biographies
Ben Abbotts, public affairs consultant. Born 22nd September 1975 in the
north-west of England. Educated at the University of Bristol. Partner,
LLM Communications since 2004. Formerly political researcher for
'A Week in Politics'. Political consultant for Weber Shandwick/GJW,
and at Edelman Worldwide. Campaign manager for Canterbury Liberal
Democrats. Assistant to the Leader of Canterbury City Council.
Contested Sevenoaks in the 2005 general election. Councillor for
Clock House ward, Bromley Borough Council, since May 2006.
Anne Belsey, self-employed maker of bespoke historical uniforms.
Contested Abbey ward, Swale Borough Council, 2006. Member of the
Sealed Knot Society.
John Cartwright, born 1969. Educated at Trinity School, Shirley, and
London University. Formed the Chocolate Fudge-Cake Party in 1993.
Joined the Official Monster Raving Loony Party in 1996. A member of
the Liberal Party from 1999 to 2001. Member of the Electoral Reform
Society, Monarchist League, Stonewall. Contested Croydon borough
council full elections in 1994, 1998, 2002 and 2006, and byelections
in September 1995, October 1996, July 1997, July 1998, May 2000,
June 2004, June 2005, and December 2005. Contested Croydon Central
in the 2001 and 2005 general elections.
Nigel Farage, commodity broker. Born 3rd April 1964 in Farnborough,
Kent. Educated at Dulwich College. Worked for Drexel Burnham Lambert,
Credit Lyonnaise Rouse Ltd, Refco Overseas Ltd, and Natexis Metals.
Joined the UK Independence Party in 1993. Contested Eastleigh in the
June 1994 byelection, Salisbury in the 1997 general election, Bexhill
and Battle in the 2001 general election and South Thanet in the 2005
general election. Contested Itchen, Test and Avon in the 1994
European Parliament elections. Member of the European Parliament for
South East England since 1999.
Ann Garrett, drama teacher. Born 1942. Educated at the Central School
of Speech and Drama. Former actress. Founder member of Theatre in
Education, Belgrade Theatre. Author of scripts for BBC Schools Radio.
Currently working at Morley College and Greenwich University. Joined
the Green Party in 1993. Contested Bromley and Chislehurst in the
2005 general election. Member of CND and the London Nuclear Trains
Working Group.
Nick Hadziannis, public relations assistant. Born 1983. Educated at
Darrick Wood School, Orpington College, and Westminster University.
Formerly worked for a community law centre.
John Hemming-Clarke, self-employed publisher. Born 1960. Contested
Chislehurst ward, Bromley Borough Council in May 2006. Editor of
"The Complete Guide to Finance for Business". Chairman of Families
Against Excessive Council Tax.
Bob Neill, barrister. Born 24th June 1952. Educated at Abbs Cross
School and the London School of Economics. Called to the Bar
(Middle Temple) 1975. Called to the Irish Bar (King's Inn) 1992.
Member of Havering Borough Council from 1974 to 1990. Contested
Dagenham in the 1983 and 1987 general elections. Member of the
Greater London Council for Romford from 1985 to 1986. Leader of the
London Fire and Civil Defence Authority from 1985 to 1987. Chairman
of the Greater London Conservative Political Centre from 1990 to
1993. Deputy Chairman of Greater London Area Union of Conservative
and Unionist Associations from 1993 to 1996 and Chairman from 1996
to 1998. Regional Chairman of Greater London Conservatives from 1996
to 1999. Member of the Greater London Assembly for Bexley and Bromley
since 2000. Leader of the Conservative Group from 2000 to 2002 and
since 2004.
Rachel Reeves, economist. Born 1979. Educated at Cator Park School,
New College, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics.
Currently working for the Bank of England. Formerly worked for HM
Treasury and at the British Embassy in Washington DC. Joined the
Labour Party in 1996. Contested Bromley and Chislehurst in the 2005
general election.
Steven Uncles, interim manager. Born 1964. Educated at Chislehurst
and Sidcup Grammar School. Small businessman working in the health
care and IT sectors. Joined the English Democrats Party in 2003.
Contested the 2004 elections to the European Parliament as 1st on
the EDP list. Member of the EDP National Council.
Paul Winnett, contested North Southwark and Bermondsey in the 2005
general election.
--
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
Cause: Death of Rt. Hon. M.E. Forth (C) on 17th May 2006
Date of poll: 29th June 2006
Electorate: 72,206
Valid Votes: 29,052
Turnout: 40.2%
Rejected votes: 53
(Want of Official Mark 4, Voting for more than one candidate 20,
Writing or mark by which voter could be identified 2, Unmarked or
void for uncertainty 27)
Declared at: 02:41 (after batch recount)
Benjamin Peter ABBOTTS L Dem 10,988 37.8
Anne Emily Jane BELSEY Ind - Money Ref 33 0.1
John Sydney CARTWRIGHT MRLP 132 0.5
Nigel Paul FARAGE UKIP 2,347 8.1
Mrs. Ann Christine GARRETT GP 811 2.8
Nicholas (Nick) Alexandros HADZIANNIS Ind 65 0.2
John Stanley Charles David HEMMING-CLARK Ind C 442 1.5
Robert James MacGillivray NEILL C 11,621 40.0
RECENT ELECTORAL HISTORY
(Death)
2006 72,206 40.2 R.J.M. Neill C 11,621 40.0 -11.1
(29/6) B.P. Abbotts Lab 10,988 37.8 +17.5
N.P. Farage UKIP 2,347 8.1 + 4.9
Miss R.J. Reeves Lab 1,925 6.6 -15.6
Mrs. A.C. Garrett GP 811* 2.8 - 0.4
P. Winnett NF 476* 1.6
J.S.C.D. Hemming -
Clark Ind C 442* 1.5
S.T. Uncles EDP 212* 0.7
J.S. Cartwright MRLP 132* 0.5
N.A. Hadziannis Ind 65* 0.2
Mrs. A.E.J. Belsey Ind 33* 0.1
maj. 633 2.2
David Boothroyd
I am still not sure on this precise figure which was drowned out during
the announcement. It was certainly eleven thousand, six hundred and
twenty-something.
Colin Rosenstiel
da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) wrote:
> Robert James MacGillivray NEILL C 11,621
> 40.0
The BBC seem to be having problem with this figure, still giving the
first figure you gave, 11,629. The BBC News 24 online figure was
inaudible to me.
--
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/
Tim Roll-Pickering
>> Robert James MacGillivray NEILL C 11,621
>> 40.0
> The BBC seem to be having problem with this figure, still giving the
> first figure you gave, 11,629. The BBC News 24 online figure was
> inaudible to me.
11621 is the figure I typed down on listening to News 24 on freeview and is
the source for the Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromley_and_Chislehurst_by-election%2C_2006
JNugent
> BROMLEY, BROMLEY and CHISLEHURST [15]
> Cause: Death of Rt. Hon. M.E. Forth (C) on 17th May 2006
> Date of poll: 29th June 2006
> Electorate: 72,206
> Valid Votes: 29,060
> Turnout: 40.2%
> Rejected votes: 53
> (Want of Official Mark 4, Voting for more than one candidate 20,
> Writing or mark by which voter could be identified 2, Unmarked or
> void for uncertainty 27)
> Declared at: 02:41 (after batch recount)
>
> Benjamin Peter ABBOTTS L Dem 10,988 37.8
> Anne Emily Jane BELSEY Ind - Money Ref 33 0.1
> John Sydney CARTWRIGHT MRLP 132 0.5
> Nigel Paul FARAGE UKIP 2,347 8.1
> Mrs. Ann Christine GARRETT GP 811 2.8
> Nicholas (Nick) Alexandros HADZIANNIS Ind 65 0.2
> John Stanley Charles David HEMMING-CLARK Ind C 442 1.5
> Robert James MacGillivray NEILL C 11,629 40.0
> Rachel Jane REEVES Lab 1,925 6.6
> Steven Thomas UNCLES EDP 212 0.7
> Paul WINNETT NF 476 1.6
What an incredible collapse of the Labour vote, which, coupled with the
intervention of UKIP, has substantially cut the Conservative majority (due
to Labour voters switching to the LDs).
Still, a win's a win - and a loss is a loss (more relevant elsewhere last
night, I think).
The numbers will be different at the next GE.
JohnLoony
David Boothroyd wrote:
> Electorate: 72,206
It was 71,798
> Valid Votes: 29,060
It was 29,052
(The total at the 1st verification stage was 29,146; there were 53
spoilts and therefore a discrepancy of 41)
> Turnout: 40.2%
It was 40.5%
> Anne Emily Jane BELSEY Ind - Money Ref 33 0.1
Money Reform Party, not "Ind - Money Ref"
> John Sydney CARTWRIGHT MRLP 132 0.5
OMRLP - it is only the other parties which are unofficial
> John Stanley Charles David HEMMING-CLARK Ind C 442 1.5
Ind, not "Ind C". At no time did Mr H-C ever describe himself as any
type of Conservative.
> Robert James MacGillivray NEILL C 11,629 40.0
It was 11,621
> John Cartwright, born 1969.
I was born on 26th July 1968.
JNugent
"The Conservatives held Bromley and Chislehurst, in south-east England, but
their 2005 majority was slashed from 13,342 votes to 633 by the Lib Dems".
Whatever it was it was, this was NOT a LibDem effect. They did nothing to
deserve so many votes (and quite deservedly lost).
They were merely serving their usual purpose of dustbin. This was a Labour
voter effect. It'll be different at the General Election.
JohnLoony
leaflets
2006 By-Election (Bromley & Chislehurst): 0.45% of the votes; 600
leaflets
The yield in terms of votes per leaflet, or votes per pound of
expenditure, was much higher than either of my two previous
parliamentary election results, and clearly shows that the OMRLP is on
its way to a sweeping victory in the next genersal election. This was
the first time in my 15 elections that I was standing outside Croydon,
and the first time that I didn't come either last or last-but-one. I
came 9th out of 11, which I had expected, although I thought it was
possible that I might have come as high as 6th or 7th. Throughout most
of the count my sampling of bundles was suggesting a narrow Lib Dem
win, and I was surprised by the Conservative victory. As I said in my
speech, the result was a triumph of the mediocre over the contemptible.
Paul Evans
"JNugent" <not.t...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:26ednVRzo6V...@pipex.net...
Indeed, and of course the usual nasty and personal Lib-Dem campaign that
we've come to expect. It wasn't good enough to beat a good man this time.
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
John M Ward
Paul Evans <som...@noone.remove.com> wrote:
> "JNugent" <not.t...@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:26ednVRzo6V...@pipex.net...
> > David Boothroyd wrote:
[results snipped to avoid an over-long quoted part]
> > What an incredible collapse of the Labour vote, which, coupled with
> > the intervention of UKIP, has substantially cut the Conservative
> > majority (due to Labour voters switching to the LDs).
Hazel Blears has claimed on TV this morning that it was an
"anti-Conservative vote" that split their vote. This might or might not
be partially correct. My gut feeling (and it is no more than that) is
that this was a fairly small part of what happened.
> > Still, a win's a win - and a loss is a loss (more relevant
> > elsewhere last night, I think).
> >
> > The numbers will be different at the next GE.
Well, yes -- I wouldn't expect an identical result ;-) What you mean,
I do realise, is that the "shape" of the voting (if I may call it that,
for want of a better term) will be different. Bearing in mind how the
LibDem candidate conducted himself at the declaration, I think a lot of
folk watching will have a better idea of his true nature, and many who
voted LibDem on this occasion won't make the same mistake next time.
> Indeed, and of course the usual nasty and personal Lib-Dem campaign
> that we've come to expect. It wasn't good enough to beat a good man
> this time.
Yes, it was apparently a /very/ nasty campaign by them. There's no way
I'd want anyone like Ben Abbots as *my* MP -- ever! It's bad enough
having a few Labour councillors here who are of the same ilk (plus some
LibDem would-be councillors, three of whom I and my ward colleagues will
of course continue to keep out!). It is certainly worrying that
thousands of people were still able to be so easily swayed by that style
of campaign in Bromley -- it'll only encourage the "bad guys".
--
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
* Oppose electoral fraud, especially through postal votes
* Scrap the ODPM's successor and the Regionalisation agenda
* Return all local decisions to local people
Colin Rosenstiel
T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:
It seems to have been accepted by everyone today. Presumably they have
now seen the written declaration of the result (e.g. at
http://www.bromley.gov.uk/council/elected+reps/Bromley+and+Chislehurst+By-
election.htm (http://snipurl.com/siti).
Matthew Huntbach
> Paul Evans <som...@noone.remove.com> wrote:
>> "JNugent" <not.t...@isp.com> wrote in message
>>> The numbers will be different at the next GE.
> Well, yes -- I wouldn't expect an identical result ;-) What you mean,
> I do realise, is that the "shape" of the voting (if I may call it that,
> for want of a better term) will be different. Bearing in mind how the
> LibDem candidate conducted himself at the declaration, I think a lot of
> folk watching will have a better idea of his true nature, and many who
> voted LibDem on this occasion won't make the same mistake next time.
>> Indeed, and of course the usual nasty and personal Lib-Dem campaign
>> that we've come to expect. It wasn't good enough to beat a good man
>> this time.
> Yes, it was apparently a /very/ nasty campaign by them. There's no way
> I'd want anyone like Ben Abbots as *my* MP -- ever! It's bad enough
> having a few Labour councillors here who are of the same ilk (plus some
> LibDem would-be councillors, three of whom I and my ward colleagues will
> of course continue to keep out!). It is certainly worrying that
> thousands of people were still able to be so easily swayed by that style
> of campaign in Bromley -- it'll only encourage the "bad guys".
For what it's worth, I agree. Out of loyalty to the party of which I am
(was?) an active member, I spent a couple of mornings delivering leaflets
there, one on the first weekend of the campaign, one on the last, but
that was my lot. Since it's in the next door borough to where I live,
and indeed has streets where the other half is across the border in the ward
I represented until last month, had I been enthused by the Liberal
Democrat campaign, I would have found it in me to take some time off work
and spend several days full time with it.
The campaign material I saw from the Liberal Democrats struck me as
very cynical, and if I'd been one of the electorate, I'd have felt
patronised by it. It was certainly not a proper exposition of
liberal democracy, and, yes, the personal attacks on the Conservative
candidate, such as the repeated attachment of "East Ender" to his name,
were over-the-top and uncalled for.
By the way, I've just been reading the three contributions to the
"Centre Forum" debate on liberty:
http://www.centreforum.org.uk/publications.htm
and the one by Jeremy Browne, a Liberal Democrat MP, is enough to convince
me that I may well be in the wrong party. I would never ever want to
give time or risk helping elect anyone who would write the sort of
stuff attributed to him there.
Matthew Huntbach
JNugent
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, John M Ward wrote:
[ ... ]
[LibDem campaign in Bromley:
>> Yes, it was apparently a /very/ nasty campaign by them. There's no way
>> I'd want anyone like Ben Abbots as *my* MP -- ever! ...
> For what it's worth, I agree. Out of loyalty to the party of which I am
> (was?) an active member, I spent a couple of mornings delivering leaflets
> there, one on the first weekend of the campaign, one on the last, but
> that was my lot. Since it's in the next door borough to where I live,
> and indeed has streets where the other half is across the border in the
> ward I represented until last month ...
What happened last month?
> The campaign material I saw from the Liberal Democrats struck me as
> very cynical, and if I'd been one of the electorate, I'd have felt
> patronised by it. It was certainly not a proper exposition of
> liberal democracy, and, yes, the personal attacks on the Conservative
> candidate, such as the repeated attachment of "East Ender" to his name,
> were over-the-top and uncalled for.
> By the way, I've just been reading the three contributions to the
> "Centre Forum" debate on liberty:
> http://www.centreforum.org.uk/publications.htm
> and the one by Jeremy Browne, a Liberal Democrat MP, is enough to convince
> me that I may well be in the wrong party. I would never ever want to
> give time or risk helping elect anyone who would write the sort of
> stuff attributed to him there.
It seems fairly anodyne.
What's the main problem with it (for you)?
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> By the way, I've just been reading the three contributions to the
> "Centre Forum" debate on liberty:
>
> http://www.centreforum.org.uk/publications.htm
>
> and the one by Jeremy Browne, a Liberal Democrat MP, is enough to convince
> me that I may well be in the wrong party. I would never ever want to
> give time or risk helping elect anyone who would write the sort of
> stuff attributed to him there.
This is perhaps not the right place for this question, but, Matthew,
what in particular to you find so horrendous about Browne's piece?
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
If this was simply Labour votes disaffected with Labour and switching
to the LibDems, why did the Tory vote share fall so and how on earth
are the Tories ever going to win a General Election if they can't get
disaffected Labour voters?
--
Henry
JNugent
He's claiming that Campbell supported his campaign (2:12)
Is Ming going to sue?
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, John M Ward wrote:
> [LibDem campaign in Bromley:
>>> Yes, it was apparently a /very/ nasty campaign by them. There's no way
>>> I'd want anyone like Ben Abbots as *my* MP -- ever! ...
>> For what it's worth, I agree. Out of loyalty to the party of which I am
>> (was?) an active member, I spent a couple of mornings delivering leaflets
>> there, one on the first weekend of the campaign, one on the last, but
>> that was my lot. Since it's in the next door borough to where I live,
>> and indeed has streets where the other half is across the border in the
>> ward I represented until last month ...
> What happened last month?
My term of office ended when there were the general London Borough
elections. I did not restand. I couldn't anyway, as I've moved house
to another borough (Greenwich - I represented a ward in Lewisham,
these boroughs border each other and Bromlet borough where the
constituency in question is situated).
>> By the way, I've just been reading the three contributions to the
>> "Centre Forum" debate on liberty:
>>
>> http://www.centreforum.org.uk/publications.htm
>> and the one by Jeremy Browne, a Liberal Democrat MP, is enough to convince
>> me that I may well be in the wrong party. I would never ever want to
>> give time or risk helping elect anyone who would write the sort of
>> stuff attributed to him there.
> It seems fairly anodyne.
>
> What's the main problem with it (for you)?
Will say something later, don't have time now, and need to reply in some
detail.
Matthew Huntbach
JNugent
> JNugent wrote
>>The BBC's take:
>>"The Conservatives held Bromley and Chislehurst, in south-east England, but
>>their 2005 majority was slashed from 13,342 votes to 633 by the Lib Dems".
>>Whatever it was it was, this was NOT a LibDem effect. They did nothing to
>>deserve so many votes (and quite deservedly lost).
>>They were merely serving their usual purpose of dustbin. This was a Labour
>>voter effect. It'll be different at the General Election.
> If this was simply Labour votes disaffected with Labour and switching
> to the LibDems, why did the Tory vote share fall
Because it was a by-election. These things happen in by-elections when the
nonentity parties find it easier to gain publicity. General Elections are
different.
> so and how on earth
> are the Tories ever going to win a General Election if they can't get
> disaffected Labour voters?
It was a by-election. These things happen in by-elections when the
nonentity parties find it easier to gain publicity.
Come back after the next GE and remind me about this conversation IF the
results are in any way comparable.
BTW: I've been belatedly checking on the LibDem campaign in this
by-election. A nastier, more envy-ridden, campaign would be hard to
imagine. They even resorted to attacking the late Eric Forth - a man who
was worth fifty of Abbotts the loser or anyone like him.
JNugent
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, JNugent wrote:
>> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, John M Ward wrote:
>> [LibDem campaign in Bromley:
>>>> Yes, it was apparently a /very/ nasty campaign by them. There's no way
>>>> I'd want anyone like Ben Abbots as *my* MP -- ever! ...
>>> For what it's worth, I agree. Out of loyalty to the party of which I am
>>> (was?) an active member, I spent a couple of mornings delivering
>>> leaflets
>>> there, one on the first weekend of the campaign, one on the last, but
>>> that was my lot. Since it's in the next door borough to where I live,
>>> and indeed has streets where the other half is across the border in
>>> the ward I represented until last month ...
>> What happened last month?
> My term of office ended when there were the general London Borough
> elections. I did not restand. I couldn't anyway, as I've moved house
> to another borough (Greenwich - I represented a ward in Lewisham,
> these boroughs border each other and Bromlet borough where the
> constituency in question is situated).
Oh, OK. I do remember something about it now that you mention it.
I dare say you've noticed that you've suddenly got your life back. Welcome
back to the real world! :-)
>>> By the way, I've just been reading the three contributions to the
>>> "Centre Forum" debate on liberty:
>>> http://www.centreforum.org.uk/publications.htm
>>> and the one by Jeremy Browne, a Liberal Democrat MP, is enough to
>>> convince
>>> me that I may well be in the wrong party. I would never ever want to
>>> give time or risk helping elect anyone who would write the sort of
>>> stuff attributed to him there.
>> It seems fairly anodyne.
>> What's the main problem with it (for you)?
> Will say something later, don't have time now, and need to reply in some
> detail.
OK; I'll watch out for it.
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) wrote:
> (Death)
> 2006 72,206 40.2 R.J.M. Neill C 11,629 40.0
> -11.1
> (29/6) B.P. Abbotts Lab 10,988 37.8
> +17.5
One small typo - as I'm sure we all know Ben Abbotts was the Lib Dem
candidate
Ian Ridley
"I am a Liberal because I prefer progress to stagnation;
because I place the happiness of the many above the privileges
of the few; and because I believe that disastrous revolutions
are best averted by timely reforms" - George Osborne Morgan.
James Farrar
>In article <david-C8486E....@news.news.demon.net>,
>da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) wrote:
>
>> (Death)
>> 2006 72,206 40.2 R.J.M. Neill C 11,629 40.0
>> -11.1
>> (29/6) B.P. Abbotts Lab 10,988 37.8
>> +17.5
>
>One small typo - as I'm sure we all know Ben Abbotts was the Lib Dem
>candidate
You mean Abbotts and Reeves won't be expelled for standing against a
Labour Party candidate? :)
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote [...]
> > how on earth are the Tories ever going to win a General Election if they can't get
> > disaffected Labour voters?
>
> It was a by-election. These things happen in by-elections when the
> nonentity parties find it easier to gain publicity.
>
> Come back after the next GE and remind me about this conversation IF the
> results are in any way comparable.
The constituency next to mine is Brent East, won by LibDem Sarah
Teather at a by-election... and then held at the subsequent General
Election. Yes, by-elections aren't the same as General Elections, but
nor are they irrelevancies.
--
Henry
JNugent
Post-WW2 history is littered with Lib bods who won at by-elections, held on
for another election or two, then disappeared. Barnes, Bellotti, Others too
trivial to remember - where are they now?
While the public are often glad of an opportunity to give a major party a
kicking, at heart, they dislike ambulance-chasers (such as Abbott) just
like we do.
Colin Rosenstiel
not.t...@isp.com (JNugent) wrote:
> Post-WW2 history is littered with Lib bods who won at by-elections,
> held on for another election or two, then disappeared. Barnes,
> Bellotti, Others too trivial to remember - where are they now?
Like Alan Beith or David Steel, you mean?
David Boothroyd
"JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> David Boothroyd wrote:
> > Anne Emily Jane BELSEY Ind - Money Ref 33 0.1
>
> Money Reform Party, not "Ind - Money Ref"
The exact definition used on the ballot paper is neither here nor
there. "Money Ref" is an abbreviation of "Money Reform Party".
> > John Sydney CARTWRIGHT MRLP 132 0.5
>
> OMRLP - it is only the other parties which are unofficial
MRLP is the abbreviation for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.
> > John Stanley Charles David HEMMING-CLARK Ind C 442 1.5
>
> Ind, not "Ind C". At no time did Mr H-C ever describe himself as any
> type of Conservative.
I didn't say he did. It was an analysis of his position in that he was
positioning himself as unofficial Conservative: he claimed to be the
heir to the previous official Conservative and his campaign was generally
directed at usurping the official candidate.
Other corrections noted.
James Farrar
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <1151650024....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> David Boothroyd wrote:
>> > Anne Emily Jane BELSEY Ind - Money Ref 33 0.1
>>
>> Money Reform Party, not "Ind - Money Ref"
>
>The exact definition used on the ballot paper is neither here nor
>there. "Money Ref" is an abbreviation of "Money Reform Party".
What determines which parties you give an abbreviation of their own
and which you list as Ind?
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> The BBC's take:
>
> "The Conservatives held Bromley and Chislehurst, in south-east England, but
> their 2005 majority was slashed from 13,342 votes to 633 by the Lib Dems".
>
> Whatever it was it was, this was NOT a LibDem effect. They did nothing to
> deserve so many votes (and quite deservedly lost).
Parties that fare badly usually blame someone else before looking at
their own problems, thus all the bitching about LibDem canpaigning.
With David Cameron still doing well in the polls, perhaps much of the
Conservatives' problem in Bromley & Chislehurst was how the local party
spurned him and his reforms.
Politicalbetting.com had an interesting piece on by-elections, see
<http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/30/guest-slot-rod-cosbys-by-election-trend-analysis/>.
This points out that, generally, the swing the opposition party
achieves in by-elections tends to be 4% higher than what they achieve
at the subsequent general election. Consider the swing the
Conservatives need to form the next Government, now add 4%, that means
the Tories need to be seeing swings of over 15% in by-elections.
However, of the 5 by-elections so far in this Parliament, the Tory vote
share has fallen in three of them! Their best swing (in the
Boothroydian sense) is 7.2% in Dunfermline and West Fife (Tory vote
share was down 2.5%, but the collapse in Labour's vote share gives them
a positive swing).
--
Henry
JNugent
> JNugent wrote
>>The BBC's take:
>>"The Conservatives held Bromley and Chislehurst, in south-east England, but
>>their 2005 majority was slashed from 13,342 votes to 633 by the Lib Dems".
>>Whatever it was it was, this was NOT a LibDem effect. They did nothing to
>>deserve so many votes (and quite deservedly lost).
> Parties that fare badly usually blame someone else before looking at
> their own problems
Indeed, that's probably true.
The LibDems lost because they deserved to and all the bitching they did
during the campaign didn't work.
> thus all the bitching about LibDem canpaigning.
Are you aware that the LibDem leader had to intervene to stop the local LDs
from campaigning until after the funeral of the late Eric Forth? That's the
sort of people they are. Other, reasonably local, LDs have already
criticised them and their tactics.
Are you aware that the "substance" of the Bromley LD "campaign" was an
incitement to envy (because Bob Neill is also a member of the London
Assembly and could therefore draw two salaries for a while)? There is a
particular sort of voter that such tactics attract, of course.
Are you aware that the LDs were equally peed off because Neill had
indicated he would not cause a by-election on the GLA (which the LDs would
- as usual - have loved)?
> With David Cameron still doing well in the polls, perhaps much of the
> Conservatives' problem in Bromley & Chislehurst was how the local party
> spurned him and his reforms.
No - it was that most of the local Labour voters decided (in a very typical
by-election manner) to vote LD. They won't do that at a GE and you know it.
James Farrar
<use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>JNugent wrote
>> The BBC's take:
>>
>> "The Conservatives held Bromley and Chislehurst, in south-east England, but
>> their 2005 majority was slashed from 13,342 votes to 633 by the Lib Dems".
>>
>> Whatever it was it was, this was NOT a LibDem effect. They did nothing to
>> deserve so many votes (and quite deservedly lost).
>
>Parties that fare badly usually blame someone else before looking at
>their own problems, thus all the bitching about LibDem canpaigning.
>With David Cameron still doing well in the polls, perhaps much of the
>Conservatives' problem in Bromley & Chislehurst was how the local party
>spurned him and his reforms.
>
>Politicalbetting.com had an interesting piece on by-elections, see
><http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/30/guest-slot-rod-cosbys-by-election-trend-analysis/>.
>This points out that, generally, the swing the opposition party
>achieves in by-elections tends to be 4% higher than what they achieve
>at the subsequent general election. Consider the swing the
>Conservatives need to form the next Government, now add 4%, that means
>the Tories need to be seeing swings of over 15% in by-elections.
In marginals. Swing against an incumbent party in a safe seat in a
byelection can't be taken to seriously, unless turnout is in the order
of that in a GE; otherwise, it seems likely that some of the core
would have thought "no point voting, we won't lose the seat".
Colin Rosenstiel
not.t...@isp.com (JNugent) wrote:
> Are you aware that the LibDem leader had to intervene to stop the
> local LDs from campaigning until after the funeral of the late Eric
> Forth?
No he didn't because there was no byelection campaigning then.
> Are you aware that the "substance" of the Bromley LD "campaign" was
> an incitement to envy (because Bob Neill is also a member of the
> London Assembly and could therefore draw two salaries for a while)?
> There is a particular sort of voter that such tactics attract, of
> course.
Nothing to do with his residence being a lot nearer to Bromley-by-Bow
than the constituency then? We believe in full-time MPs. Don't you?
> No - it was that most of the local Labour voters decided (in a very
> typical by-election manner) to vote LD. They won't do that at a GE
> and you know it.
Dream on! I canvassed a lot of disgruntled Tories when I was there.
Jim Riley
wrote:
> BROMLEY, BROMLEY and CHISLEHURST [15]
>(Death)
>2006 72,206 40.2 R.J.M. Neill C 11,621 40.0 -11.1
>(29/6) B.P. Abbotts Lab 10,988 37.8 +17.5
s/Lab/L Dem/
--
Jim Riley
JNugent
> not.t...@isp.com (JNugent) wrote:
>>Are you aware that the LibDem leader had to intervene to stop the
>>local LDs from campaigning until after the funeral of the late Eric
>>Forth?
> No he didn't because there was no byelection campaigning then.
So who is lying? Campbell or the local LDs in Bromley? They cannot both be
right, can they?
>>Are you aware that the "substance" of the Bromley LD "campaign" was
>>an incitement to envy (because Bob Neill is also a member of the
>>London Assembly and could therefore draw two salaries for a while)?
>>There is a particular sort of voter that such tactics attract, of
>>course.
> Nothing to do with his residence being a lot nearer to Bromley-by-Bow
> than the constituency then? We believe in full-time MPs. Don't you?
Dear me...
Bromley-by-Bow is no significant distance from Bromley, but the new Member
of Parliament had already said he will move into Bromley (and was in event
connected with the constituency, no doubt to the chagrin of some, who had
hoped for a GLA by-election). If the only candidates eligible for election
were those who happened to be resident in a constituency (and presumably
had been so for some time) at the date the vacancy occurred, there would be
many MPs - of all parties - who would never have been elected - wouldn't
there? And what about boundary changes? What if a *sitting* MP suddenly
finds that the ward he lives in is now outside the redrawn seat? Should he
move house? Uproot any dependant children?
Give it up - you are pursuing an absolutely daft "argument" there and you
know it.
And there are loads of MPs who retain outside interests - some are (or have
been) councillors at the same time. A GLA member is a councillor in all but
name. I accept that this may usually have been to prevent a by-election -
one good example was - IIRC - David Alton, back in the late seventies. Go
on - have a go at him.
>>No - it was that most of the local Labour voters decided (in a very
>>typical by-election manner) to vote LD. They won't do that at a GE
>>and you know it.
> Dream on! I canvassed a lot of disgruntled Tories when I was there.
The Labour vote collapsed spectacularly. Perhaps you think they all decided
to vote for Neill to keep the LD out.
The Libs make your claim every time at by-elections, ever since I can
remember (and as it happens, I can remember Orpington). I wonder why
they're not in government yet?
Matthew Huntbach
I felt the piece by Neal Lawson he was replying to did make some
valuable points, and I was particularly concerned by Browne's complete
lack of recognition of those points, and by his dismissal of Lawson as if
he was advocating late 20th century Eastern European socialism. There
was nothing from Browne, for example, that suggested any recognition
of the successes of Scandinavian social democracy. Browne's economics
seem to be somewhat to the right of Margaret Thatcher's. Mainly my
concern was that it was just sloppy, looking like it was trying to
appeal to right-wing businessmen, and with no real feel for all the
various constraints people feel in our society today.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> Parties that fare badly usually blame someone else before looking at
> their own problems, thus all the bitching about LibDem canpaigning.
> With David Cameron still doing well in the polls, perhaps much of the
> Conservatives' problem in Bromley & Chislehurst was how the local party
> spurned him and his reforms.
In other words, the Conservative Party in Bromley chose someone THEY
wanted, who had a local connection as the GLA member for the Bromley
and Bexley, and who was not some empty-headed celebrity dumped on them
by party HQ who could be assumed to act as a Cameron yes-man. Good for
them, I'm glad their man won. He deserved it, ours with his nasty
negative campaign did not.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> Are you aware that the LibDem leader had to intervene to stop the local LDs
> from campaigning until after the funeral of the late Eric Forth? That's the
> sort of people they are. Other, reasonably local, LDs have already
> criticised them and their tactics.
To be fair, the "campaigning" in question was the circulation of an
email to known activists in the area letting them know what was
happening, not the distribution of anything to the electorate.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
>> With David Cameron still doing well in the polls, perhaps much of the
>> Conservatives' problem in Bromley & Chislehurst was how the local party
>> spurned him and his reforms.
> No - it was that most of the local Labour voters decided (in a very typical
> by-election manner) to vote LD. They won't do that at a GE and you know it.
Bromley and Chislehurst actually has some fairly large council
estate areas, including part of the Downham estate the bulk of
which is in LB Lewisham and I represented for 12 years as a LibDem
councillor. Our experience in Lewisham is that many Labour voters in
these places are now very weak supporters of the party, and will
easily switch - and stay switched as 19 years of LibDem councillors in
Downham shows - to the Liberal Democrats, if the Liberal Democrats can
run some sort of campaign which is better than Labour's usual tired
effort.
Labour managed to hang on with a reasonable share of the vote in
Bromley and Chislehurst because the Liberal Democrats always tended
to throw almost all their effort in Parliamentary elections at trying
to win Orpington. It was a default vote - people in the council estates
will carry on voting Labour if they see nothing from either the Liberal
Democrats or Labour, on the back of "we always vote Labour" and the image
of elections being between Labour and the Conservatives which is still to
some extent what they see in the media, particularly in the newspapers they
tend to read.
It's quite possible here that having been tempted tovote Liberal Democrat
once, they will continue to do so, IF the Liberal Democrats keep up a
campaigning record.
Matthew Huntbach
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Moreover, the email asked for help to get the post local election "Thank
You" Focus out. These would normally be delivered by local volunteers
over the month or two following the local elections. With the
by-election pending the delivery timetable was compressed and the local
party needed help from other Lib Dems.
The email did not ask for help to deliver campaign material for the
by-election.
Ian Ridley
"The principle of liberalism is trust in the people, qualified
by prudence. The principle of conservatism is mistrust of the
people, qualified by fear", - W.E. Gladstone.
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
> them, I'm glad their man won. He deserved it, ours with his nasty
> negative campaign did not.
Matthew, are you believing Tory spin? Surely it was legitimate to
question how much time the Tory would commit to being an MP, as he was/
is already leader of the Tories on the GLA and had no intention to
resign before the next GLA elections? Surely it was legitimate to
question his commitment to the constituency given that he lives in the
Docklands and has not given any indication of moving nearer to B&C
By the tone of the Tory's graceless acceptance speech, I had the
impression that we had accused him of slaughtering all the first born in
the area as a minimum!
You only need to look at the acceptance speech of our winning candidate
in Cheadle for an example of decorum in the face of a Tory campaign that
truly deserves the adjectives "nasty" and "personal".
Tim Roll-Pickering
> Matthew, are you believing Tory spin? Surely it was legitimate to
> question how much time the Tory would commit to being an MP, as he was/
> is already leader of the Tories on the GLA and had no intention to
> resign before the next GLA elections?
He has made it clear that he will step down as leader of the Conservative
group. In any case the GLA is a pile of wank that frankly could be abolished
without making any difference to Londoners' lives (except perhaps Lib Dem
shit merchants).
> Surely it was legitimate to
> question his commitment to the constituency given that he lives in the
> Docklands and has not given any indication of moving nearer to B&C
Did you not hear his pledge to move to the constituency if elected? Or were
your lot too busy shovelling shit to listen? And he has been the local
assembly member for six years - a strong sign of committment. Compare this
with your candidate who lives in and represents an area at the far end of
Beckenham.
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> > Matthew, are you believing Tory spin? Surely it was legitimate to
> > question how much time the Tory would commit to being an MP, as he
> > was/
> > is already leader of the Tories on the GLA and had no intention to
> > resign before the next GLA elections?
>
> He has made it clear that he will step down as leader of the
> Conservative group. In any case the GLA is a pile of wank that
> frankly could be abolished without making any difference to
> Londoners' lives (except perhaps Lib Dem shit merchants).
Where does it say in Bob's literature or on his site that he will step
down as leader?
So the Mayor doesn't need to be kept in check? Bob's site likes to say
how he "takes on Ken Livingstone". According to you this doesn't make
"any difference to Londoners' lives". So why does he bother?
> > Surely it was legitimate to
> > question his commitment to the constituency given that he lives in
> > the
> > Docklands and has not given any indication of moving nearer to B&C
>
> Did you not hear his pledge to move to the constituency if elected?
Was this put in any literature? When did he say this? Again I can't find
anything on his web site.
> Or were your lot too busy shovelling shit to listen? And he has been
> the local assembly member for six years - a strong sign of
> committment. Compare this with your candidate who lives in and
> represents an area at the far end of Beckenham.
Closer than the Docklands.
It's amazing how the Tories resort to foul language when they're
threatened.
Mike Drew
David Boothroyd wrote:
> BROMLEY, BROMLEY and CHISLEHURST [15]
>
> Cause: Death of Rt. Hon. M.E. Forth (C) on 17th May 2006
> Date of poll: 29th June 2006
> Electorate: 72,206
> Valid Votes: 29,052
> Turnout: 40.2%
> Rejected votes: 53
> (Want of Official Mark 4, Voting for more than one candidate 20,
> Writing or mark by which voter could be identified 2, Unmarked or
> void for uncertainty 27)
> Declared at: 02:41 (after batch recount)
>
> Benjamin Peter ABBOTTS L Dem 10,988 37.8
> Anne Emily Jane BELSEY Ind - Money Ref 33 0.1
> John Sydney CARTWRIGHT MRLP 132 0.5
> Nigel Paul FARAGE UKIP 2,347 8.1
> Mrs. Ann Christine GARRETT GP 811 2.8
> Nicholas (Nick) Alexandros HADZIANNIS Ind 65 0.2
> John Stanley Charles David HEMMING-CLARK Ind C 442 1.5
> Robert James MacGillivray NEILL C 11,621 40.0
> Rachel Jane REEVES Lab 1,925 6.6
> Steven Thomas UNCLES EDP 212 0.7
> Paul WINNETT NF 476 1.6
>
> RECENT ELECTORAL HISTORY
>
> Election Electors T'out Candidate Party Votes % Ch.%
>
>
> 1992 73,653 79.0 NOTIONAL ELECTION C 36,028 62.0
> L Dem 10,370 17.8
> Lab 10,027 17.2
> Oths 1,725* 3.0
> maj. 25,658 44.1
>
> 1997 71,210 74.1 *Rt. Hon. M.E. Forth C 24,428 46.3 -15.6
> R.J. Yeldham Lab 13,310 25.2 + 8.0
> P.J.H. Booth L Dem 12,530 23.8 + 5.9
> R.M. Bryant UKIP 1,176* 2.2
> Mrs. F.M. Speed GP 640* 1.2
> M.R. Stoneman NF 369* 0.7
> G. Aitman L 285* 0.6
> maj. 11,118 21.1
>
> 2001 67,183 64.3 Rt. Hon. M.E. Forth C 21,412 49.6 + 3.2
> Mrs. S.A. Polydorou Lab 12,375 28.6 + 3.4
> G.D.S. Payne L Dem 8,180 18.9 - 4.8
> R.M. Bryant UKIP 1,264* 2.9 + 0.8
> maj. 9,037 21.0
>
> 2005 71,137 64.9 Rt. Hon. M.E. Forth C 23,583 51.1 + 1.6
> Miss R.J. Reeves Lab 10,241 22.2 - 6.4
> P.R. Brooks L Dem 9,368 20.3 + 1.4
> D.N. Hooper UKIP 1,475* 3.2 + 0.3
> Mrs. A.C. Garrett GP 1,470* 3.2
> maj. 13,342 28.9
>
> (Death)
> 2006 72,206 40.2 R.J.M. Neill C 11,621 40.0 -11.1
> (29/6) B.P. Abbotts Lab 10,988 37.8 +17.5
Obviously David can't believe that the Lib Dems can achieve such a swing
:-)
> N.P. Farage UKIP 2,347 8.1 + 4.9
> Miss R.J. Reeves Lab 1,925 6.6 -15.6
> Mrs. A.C. Garrett GP 811* 2.8 - 0.4
> P. Winnett NF 476* 1.6
> J.S.C.D. Hemming -
> Clark Ind C 442* 1.5
> S.T. Uncles EDP 212* 0.7
> J.S. Cartwright MRLP 132* 0.5
> N.A. Hadziannis Ind 65* 0.2
> Mrs. A.E.J. Belsey Ind 33* 0.1
> maj. 633 2.2
>
> Notes:-
>
> 2006: Belsey was the candidate of the Money Reform Party, which
> she had formed.
>
> Candidates' Biographies
>
> Ben Abbotts, public affairs consultant. Born 22nd September 1975 in the
> north-west of England. Educated at the University of Bristol. Partner,
> LLM Communications since 2004. Formerly political researcher for
> 'A Week in Politics'. Political consultant for Weber Shandwick/GJW,
> and at Edelman Worldwide. Campaign manager for Canterbury Liberal
> Democrats. Assistant to the Leader of Canterbury City Council.
> Contested Sevenoaks in the 2005 general election. Councillor for
> Clock House ward, Bromley Borough Council, since May 2006.
>
> Anne Belsey, self-employed maker of bespoke historical uniforms.
> Contested Abbey ward, Swale Borough Council, 2006. Member of the
> Sealed Knot Society.
>
> John Cartwright, born 1969. Educated at Trinity School, Shirley, and
> London University. Formed the Chocolate Fudge-Cake Party in 1993.
> Joined the Official Monster Raving Loony Party in 1996. A member of
> the Liberal Party from 1999 to 2001. Member of the Electoral Reform
> Society, Monarchist League, Stonewall. Contested Croydon borough
> council full elections in 1994, 1998, 2002 and 2006, and byelections
> in September 1995, October 1996, July 1997, July 1998, May 2000,
> June 2004, June 2005, and December 2005. Contested Croydon Central
> in the 2001 and 2005 general elections.
>
> Nigel Farage, commodity broker. Born 3rd April 1964 in Farnborough,
> Kent. Educated at Dulwich College. Worked for Drexel Burnham Lambert,
> Credit Lyonnaise Rouse Ltd, Refco Overseas Ltd, and Natexis Metals.
> Joined the UK Independence Party in 1993. Contested Eastleigh in the
> June 1994 byelection, Salisbury in the 1997 general election, Bexhill
> and Battle in the 2001 general election and South Thanet in the 2005
> general election. Contested Itchen, Test and Avon in the 1994
> European Parliament elections. Member of the European Parliament for
> South East England since 1999.
>
> Ann Garrett, drama teacher. Born 1942. Educated at the Central School
> of Speech and Drama. Former actress. Founder member of Theatre in
> Education, Belgrade Theatre. Author of scripts for BBC Schools Radio.
> Currently working at Morley College and Greenwich University. Joined
> the Green Party in 1993. Contested Bromley and Chislehurst in the
> 2005 general election. Member of CND and the London Nuclear Trains
> Working Group.
>
> Nick Hadziannis, public relations assistant. Born 1983. Educated at
> Darrick Wood School, Orpington College, and Westminster University.
> Formerly worked for a community law centre.
>
> John Hemming-Clarke, self-employed publisher. Born 1960. Contested
> Chislehurst ward, Bromley Borough Council in May 2006. Editor of
> "The Complete Guide to Finance for Business". Chairman of Families
> Against Excessive Council Tax.
>
> Bob Neill, barrister. Born 24th June 1952. Educated at Abbs Cross
> School and the London School of Economics. Called to the Bar
> (Middle Temple) 1975. Called to the Irish Bar (King's Inn) 1992.
> Member of Havering Borough Council from 1974 to 1990. Contested
> Dagenham in the 1983 and 1987 general elections. Member of the
> Greater London Council for Romford from 1985 to 1986. Leader of the
> London Fire and Civil Defence Authority from 1985 to 1987. Chairman
> of the Greater London Conservative Political Centre from 1990 to
> 1993. Deputy Chairman of Greater London Area Union of Conservative
> and Unionist Associations from 1993 to 1996 and Chairman from 1996
> to 1998. Regional Chairman of Greater London Conservatives from 1996
> to 1999. Member of the Greater London Assembly for Bexley and Bromley
> since 2000. Leader of the Conservative Group from 2000 to 2002 and
> since 2004.
>
> Rachel Reeves, economist. Born 1979. Educated at Cator Park School,
> New College, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics.
> Currently working for the Bank of England. Formerly worked for HM
> Treasury and at the British Embassy in Washington DC. Joined the
> Labour Party in 1996. Contested Bromley and Chislehurst in the 2005
> general election.
>
> Steven Uncles, interim manager. Born 1964. Educated at Chislehurst
> and Sidcup Grammar School. Small businessman working in the health
> care and IT sectors. Joined the English Democrats Party in 2003.
> Contested the 2004 elections to the European Parliament as 1st on
> the EDP list. Member of the EDP National Council.
>
> Paul Winnett, contested North Southwark and Bermondsey in the 2005
> general election.
>
Matthew Huntbach
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.06...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
> m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
>> them, I'm glad their man won. He deserved it, ours with his nasty
>> negative campaign did not.
> Matthew, are you believing Tory spin? Surely it was legitimate to
> question how much time the Tory would commit to being an MP, as he was/
> is already leader of the Tories on the GLA and had no intention to
> resign before the next GLA elections? Surely it was legitimate to
> question his commitment to the constituency given that he lives in the
> Docklands and has not given any indication of moving nearer to B&C
No, I am going on Liberal Democrat literature which I delivered myself
in the campaign. I didn't like the thing I was asked to deliver in the first
week, it seemed to me to be a rather cynical attempt to jump on the crime
issue and a cheap use of "world cup" feelings. Still, I could see its place
in the campaign, it's not what I'd have done at that stage, and I'd have felt
patronised to have received it, but I guessed it would go down reasonably
well, particularly in the area I ws delivering in. It didn't, however, inspire
me to put a lot of effort into the campaign. Had it been more inspiring, I might
have taken some time off to do more delivering in the following weeks, as it was
any spare time I had to do delivering after that I spent delivering the thank-you
Focus in my own ward.
I managed to get time to go to the by-election campagn again on the
last Saturday of the campaign, and this time I really didn't like the literature
I was asked to deliver. It didn't seem to have moved on from the first week's
over-emphasis on the crime issue, and, yes, I did find the personal attacks
on the Conservative Party candidate to be unpleasant and uncalled for.
In fact I met a Conservative deliver coming the other way while I was
delivering it, and apologised to him for what I was delivering. At this time,
I had seen no press coverage whatsoever of the campaign, so I'm certainly
not "believing Tory spin" - I hadn't seen any by the time I'd already
decided this wasn't a campaign I was at all happy with.
On the things that the Liberal Democrat literature was saying about the
Conservative candidate, as has already been said, it wasn't as if he lived
the other side of the country from the constituency, there was no reason to
doubt his plans to live in the constituency if he won - plenty of Liberal Democrat
Parliamentary candidates have said exactly the same thing - and I can see positive
advantages in someone being on the GLA and in Parliament.
> By the tone of the Tory's graceless acceptance speech, I had the
> impression that we had accused him of slaughtering all the first born in
> the area as a minimum!
I didn't see it. But the attacks on him in our literature were nasty and
uncalled for. I don't blame him for being graceless. I most certainly
would have found it hard to retain decorum had I been subject to the sort
of personal attack I saw in our literature deloivered on the last weekend of the
campaign.
> You only need to look at the acceptance speech of our winning candidate
> in Cheadle for an example of decorum in the face of a Tory campaign that
> truly deserves the adjectives "nasty" and "personal".
So? I'm not defendiong the Tories in Cheadle, I'm attacking the Liberal
Democrat campaign in Bromley and Chislehurst.
> "I am a Liberal because I prefer progress to stagnation;
> because I place the happiness of the many above the privileges
> of the few; and because I believe that disastrous revolutions
> are best averted by timely reforms" - George Osborne Morgan.
Hmm, judging from the way some at the top of the party are angling to cut tax
on the rich, they would place the privileges of the few above the happiness
of the many. Mr Browne would probably say that Mr Morgan's words are
typical politics of envy, and suggest a mentality which leads to shopping
with a candle stuck on your trolley.
Matthew Huntbach
Tim Roll-Pickering
>> > Matthew, are you believing Tory spin? Surely it was legitimate to
>> > question how much time the Tory would commit to being an MP, as he was/
>> > is already leader of the Tories on the GLA and had no intention to
>> > resign before the next GLA elections?
>> He has made it clear that he will step down as leader of the
>> Conservative group. In any case the GLA is a pile of wank that
>> frankly could be abolished without making any difference to
>> Londoners' lives (except perhaps Lib Dem shit merchants).
> Where does it say in Bob's literature or on his site that he will step
> down as leader?
It was widely reported in the media. As Matthew points out, numerous Lib Dem
candidates have made similar accusations.
> So the Mayor doesn't need to be kept in check? Bob's site likes to say
> how he "takes on Ken Livingstone". According to you this doesn't make
> "any difference to Londoners' lives". So why does he bother?
My personal views on the GLA have been aired many times - I think it is a
waste of space and it would be better to seek a formal link between the
borough councils and the Mayor rather than an extra Assembly. Bob may think
differently.
> It's amazing how the Tories resort to foul language when they're
> threatened.
"Shit" is no longer foul language these days given its widespread use. And
it's clear some Lib Dems like shit.
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >Politicalbetting.com had an interesting piece on by-elections, see
> ><http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/30/guest-slot-rod-cosbys-by-election-trend-analysis/>.
> >This points out that, generally, the swing the opposition party
> >achieves in by-elections tends to be 4% higher than what they achieve
> >at the subsequent general election. Consider the swing the
> >Conservatives need to form the next Government, now add 4%, that means
> >the Tories need to be seeing swings of over 15% in by-elections.
>
> In marginals. Swing against an incumbent party in a safe seat in a
> byelection can't be taken to seriously, unless turnout is in the order
> of that in a GE; otherwise, it seems likely that some of the core
> would have thought "no point voting, we won't lose the seat".
We've had five by-elections in this Parliament so far. That's quite a
few so soon after the last General Election (the last Parliament only
had six in total, although that was an unusually low figure). You can
look at all of them and say there were special cases: Blaenau Gwent was
a very odd case; Bromley & Chislehurst was a very safe Tory seat
(was!)... It's always easy to find some specific, local explanation why
such-and-such a party did well or badly in such-and-such a by-election.
However, the other way of looking at it is that there are broader
trends at work -- and, surely, that is the approach that is central to
psephology. You can keep finding excuses, but the Tories are not
recording big swings. The Conservatives have not gained a seat at a
by-election since Labour came to power... in fact, not since 1982!
Today's political landscape means that there are fewer Lab/Con
marginals than decades ago. Increasingly, we do have a patchwork of
seats, like Blaenau Gwent, or Dunfermline & West Fife, or Cheadle...
The Tories need to do well everywhere if they are to win a majority.
They've got to do well in LibDem/Con marginals (but there was a slight
swing *away* from the Conservatives in Cheadle), they've got to do
better in Scotland (but they were in 4th place in Livingston and in
Dunfermline West & Fife, with two different parties picking up the
anti-Labour vote), they've got to do better in Wales (Blaenau Gwent
shows that practically anyone can attract the anti-Labour vote...
*except* the Tories) and they've got to hold on to their heartlands
(Bromley & Chislehurst suggests that isn't straightforward).
Cheadle is the most obvious point of comparison to Bromley &
Chislehurst: both were Conservative/LibDem battles, where a beloved
local MP died of cancer, with accusations of dirty campaigning against
the challenger, Labour squeezed, and turnout down compared to the
General Election. The difference is that one was being defended by the
LibDems and the other was being defended by the Tories. Both saw
Con->LibDem swings, so it's not simply about who the incumbent is: when
LibDems are the incumbent, they gain votes; when Tories are the
incumbent, they lose votes.
--
Henry
John M Ward
Mike Drew <Mike...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> Obviously David can't believe that the Lib Dems can achieve such a
> swing :-)
[and quoted over 9 kB of previously material in the process!]
Any party /can/ achieve a large swing in any particular seat, especially
in a by-election. Independents and Residents Association candidates
have also done the same on various occasions in the past, including in
recent decades. I don't usually draw many if any conclusions from such
results myself, but there are of interest to note at the time -- no more
than that, though.
--
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
* Oppose electoral fraud, especially through postal votes
* Scrap the ODPM's successor and the Regionalisation agenda
* Return all local decisions to local people
Tim Roll-Pickering
> The Tories need to do well everywhere if they are to win a majority.
> They've got to do well in LibDem/Con marginals (but there was a slight
> swing *away* from the Conservatives in Cheadle),
Although the Conservative share of the vote went up. Unfortunately so did
the Lib Dems.
Matthew Huntbach
> Cheadle is the most obvious point of comparison to Bromley &
> Chislehurst: both were Conservative/LibDem battles, where a beloved
> local MP died of cancer, with accusations of dirty campaigning against
> the challenger, Labour squeezed, and turnout down compared to the
> General Election. The difference is that one was being defended by the
> LibDems and the other was being defended by the Tories. Both saw
> Con->LibDem swings, so it's not simply about who the incumbent is: when
> LibDems are the incumbent, they gain votes; when Tories are the
> incumbent, they lose votes.
Eric Forth was not particularly beloved in Bromley and Chiselhurst. As was
noted some time ago, he was someone who enjoyed his role as Parliamentarian,
but didn't go for the "social worker" role of the devoted constituency MP.
The difference between a by-election and a general election is that in a
by-election, people don't think of themselves as voting for a government.
Whereas in a general election, that's the main thing on their mind, and
only secondarily do they think they are voting for a constituency
representative. So a by-election is inevitably going to be much more
focussed on the personalities of the candidates than a general election
campaign would be in the same constituency. I suspect most people who voted
for Mr Forth in 2005 thought of themselves as "voting Conservative" and hardly
gave much thought to the actual person their vote was nominally for. Whereas
in the 2006 by-election, a huge emphasis was placed on this.
Matthew Huntbach
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
Many of the voters appear to have thought otherwise. You, the Tories
and anyone else are at liberty to disagree, of course. I like to think
the point of this newsgroup is to consider how voters behave rather
than arguing over how they *should* behave. ;-)
My point is there is a mismatch here. The polls suggest people like
Cameron's reforms, but the by-election votes suggest they weren't
hugely impressed by the constituency Conservative party's choices. So,
the question is, had the constituency Conservative party taken on board
more of Cameron's approach, would they have got a bigger vote? Or is
there some other explanation?
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
But if it's about the individual candidates, that's going back to the
idea that each by-election is special and that there aren't any general
implications for the parties. Yet the Political Betting article shows
evidence that there is a consistent relationship between swing in
by-elections and in General Elections. It seems to me that party
politics does still remain the dominant factor in by-elections, not
personality.
--
Henry
JohnLoony
David Boothroyd wrote:
> "JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > Money Reform Party, not "Ind - Money Ref"
>
> The exact definition used on the ballot paper is neither here nor
> there. "Money Ref" is an abbreviation of "Money Reform Party".
I wasn't referring to "the exact definition used on the ballot paper".
If you want to use "Money Ref" as the abbreviation for the Money Reform
Party, then that is fair enough. But why use the abbreviation "Ind"
when she was not an independent candidate?
> > > John Sydney CARTWRIGHT MRLP 132 0.5
> >
> > OMRLP - it is only the other parties which are unofficial
>
> MRLP is the abbreviation for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.
No it isn't. "OMRLP" is the abbreviation for the Official Monster
Raving Loony Party.
Coli...@aol.com
JohnLoony wrote:
> "OMRLP" is the abbreviation for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.
Is there an "unofficial" Monster Raving Loony Party?
David Boothroyd
"JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> David Boothroyd wrote:
> > "JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Money Reform Party, not "Ind - Money Ref"
> >
> > The exact definition used on the ballot paper is neither here nor
> > there. "Money Ref" is an abbreviation of "Money Reform Party".
>
> I wasn't referring to "the exact definition used on the ballot paper".
> If you want to use "Money Ref" as the abbreviation for the Money Reform
> Party, then that is fair enough.
It is an ad hoc abbreviation.
> But why use the abbreviation "Ind" when she was not an independent
> candidate?
She was, to all intents and purposes, an Independent candidate even if
not so described. She would be accountable to no-one and elected on her
own interests should she have won.
> > > > John Sydney CARTWRIGHT MRLP 132 0.5
> > >
> > > OMRLP - it is only the other parties which are unofficial
> >
> > MRLP is the abbreviation for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.
>
> No it isn't. "OMRLP" is the abbreviation for the Official Monster
> Raving Loony Party.
Not here it aint.
--
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
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What determines which parties you give an abbreviation of their own
> and which you list as Ind?
Such a simple question with such a complicated answer.
The question of whether a political party is worthy of an abbreviation
is not decided by a single factor but by agglomeration of many which
show whether the party is truly organised as a substantial political
party. Among the items under consideration:
* Does the party have a membership larger than the founder and their
families and friends?
* Does the party have a distinct programme offering policies in more
than one area?
* Does the party have a formal procedure for selecting candidates?
* Has the party fought multiple elections at multiple levels?
* Has the party issued publications?
* Has the party a national organisation?
Etc. etc.
James Farrar
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8vaga2he9fag245jn...@4ax.com>,
> James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What determines which parties you give an abbreviation of their own
>> and which you list as Ind?
>
>Such a simple question with such a complicated answer.
>
>The question of whether a political party is worthy of an abbreviation
>is not decided by a single factor but by agglomeration of many which
>show whether the party is truly organised as a substantial political
>party.
OK.
And presumably the ones listed as just "Ind" are ones that say
"Independent" or have no description (is this actually possible?) on
the ballot paper?
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
JohnLoony
David Boothroyd wrote:
> "JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > No it isn't. "OMRLP" is the abbreviation for the Official Monster
> > Raving Loony Party.
>
> Not here it aint.
Where is "here"? Your house? Your computer? This group? I have
almost always seen it (in writing) abbreviated as "OMRLP" or "Loony"
but hardly ever as "MRLP".
Matthew Huntbach
>> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
>>> Parties that fare badly usually blame someone else before looking at
>>> their own problems, thus all the bitching about LibDem canpaigning.
>>> With David Cameron still doing well in the polls, perhaps much of the
>>> Conservatives' problem in Bromley & Chislehurst was how the local party
>>> spurned him and his reforms.
>> In other words, the Conservative Party in Bromley chose someone THEY
>> wanted, who had a local connection as the GLA member for the Bromley
>> and Bexley, and who was not some empty-headed celebrity dumped on them
>> by party HQ who could be assumed to act as a Cameron yes-man. Good for
>> them, I'm glad their man won. He deserved it, ours with his nasty
>> negative campaign did not.
> Many of the voters appear to have thought otherwise. You, the Tories
> and anyone else are at liberty to disagree, of course. I like to think
> the point of this newsgroup is to consider how voters behave rather
> than arguing over how they *should* behave. ;-)
So, you are saying that so long as it wins votes, it is acceptable?
All that matters is winning votes? Sorry, but while you may not have
political principles, I do. In this case, the campaign run by my political
party was not in accord with my political princioples, therefore I condemn
it. Whether or not it won votes is irrelevant to that.
> My point is there is a mismatch here. The polls suggest people like
> Cameron's reforms, but the by-election votes suggest they weren't
> hugely impressed by the constituency Conservative party's choices. So,
> the question is, had the constituency Conservative party taken on board
> more of Cameron's approach, would they have got a bigger vote? Or is
> there some other explanation?
One of my principles is that politics should be about local people making
their own choices, and not about top-down management from central party
headquarters. So, yes, I do support the Bromley Conservatives in their
right to choose who they want as their candidate, and to resist the
imposition of a candidate by the party's national leader. Whether the
candidate chosen was more popular than an imposed candidate would have
been amongst the wider electorate is an entirely separate issue.
Apart from this, what are "Cameron's reforms"? He's made a few vapid remarks,
but if you analyse them what they actually amount to is a way of presenting
the same old right-wing policies and making them sound less right-wing.
Why do you want to join the right-wing press by cheering on Cameron and
agreeing with them that he really has made his party more moderate? When
it comes to actual action to solve the growing environmental crisis, or
to stop the increasing gulf between rich and poor, Cameron and his party
have proposed nothing concrete whatsoever. In fact Bob Neill, as an old
fashioned pro-European Tory, is probably more left-wing underneath than
Cameron with his hankering for joining the Tory MEPs to the extreme right
in the European Parliament. But you choose to ignore all this for the
sake of running a by-election almost exclusively on personal slagging
off of the front-running candidate. Sorry, that's not how I think politics
should be run, and I think it's a shame to our party that we did it that way.
Matthew Huntbach
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> > Matthew Huntbach wrote
> >> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> >>> Parties that fare badly usually blame someone else before looking at
> >>> their own problems, thus all the bitching about LibDem canpaigning.
> >>> With David Cameron still doing well in the polls, perhaps much of the
> >>> Conservatives' problem in Bromley & Chislehurst was how the local party
> >>> spurned him and his reforms.
> >>
> >> In other words, the Conservative Party in Bromley chose someone THEY
> >> wanted, who had a local connection as the GLA member for the Bromley
> >> and Bexley, and who was not some empty-headed celebrity dumped on them
> >> by party HQ who could be assumed to act as a Cameron yes-man. Good for
> >> them, I'm glad their man won. He deserved it, ours with his nasty
> >> negative campaign did not.
> >
> > Many of the voters appear to have thought otherwise. You, the Tories
> > and anyone else are at liberty to disagree, of course. I like to think
> > the point of this newsgroup is to consider how voters behave rather
> > than arguing over how they *should* behave. ;-)
>
> So, you are saying that so long as it wins votes, it is acceptable?
> All that matters is winning votes? Sorry, but while you may not have
> political principles, I do. In this case, the campaign run by my political
> party was not in accord with my political princioples, therefore I condemn
> it. Whether or not it won votes is irrelevant to that.
That's not remotely what I'm saying, Matthew. I'm saying this
newsgroup, uk.politics.electoral, is about psephology, it is about
looking at how people vote. This newsgroup is not meant to be for
general political debate. If you wish to discuss who you feel should
have won in the by-election, there are better suited newsgroups in the
uk.politics.* hierarchy. The business of this newsgroup is how people
did vote and the by-election saw a big swing from the Conservatives to
the Liberal Democrats.
Is that swing explainable? It is not explainable in terms of "people
thought like Matthew Huntbach". Perhaps the world would be a better
place if more people did think like you, Matthew, but that doesn't
appear to have been the case here.
I'm not saying your answer is wrong, Matthew, but that you are not
answering the question I posed.
> > My point is there is a mismatch here. The polls suggest people like
> > Cameron's reforms, but the by-election votes suggest they weren't
> > hugely impressed by the constituency Conservative party's choices. So,
> > the question is, had the constituency Conservative party taken on board
> > more of Cameron's approach, would they have got a bigger vote? Or is
> > there some other explanation?
>
> One of my principles is that politics should be about local people making
> their own choices, and not about top-down management from central party
> headquarters. So, yes, I do support the Bromley Conservatives in their
> right to choose who they want as their candidate, and to resist the
> imposition of a candidate by the party's national leader. Whether the
> candidate chosen was more popular than an imposed candidate would have
> been amongst the wider electorate is an entirely separate issue.
It is, but it's the issue that I'm asking about.
> Apart from this, what are "Cameron's reforms"? He's made a few vapid remarks,
> but if you analyse them what they actually amount to is a way of presenting
> the same old right-wing policies and making them sound less right-wing.
> Why do you want to join the right-wing press by cheering on Cameron and
> agreeing with them that he really has made his party more moderate? When
> it comes to actual action to solve the growing environmental crisis, or
> to stop the increasing gulf between rich and poor, Cameron and his party
> have proposed nothing concrete whatsoever. In fact Bob Neill, as an old
> fashioned pro-European Tory, is probably more left-wing underneath than
> Cameron with his hankering for joining the Tory MEPs to the extreme right
> in the European Parliament. But you choose to ignore all this for the
> sake of running a by-election almost exclusively on personal slagging
> off of the front-running candidate. Sorry, that's not how I think politics
> should be run, and I think it's a shame to our party that we did it that way.
Who's "you"? The cat's mother? I didn't run the by-election campaign. I
took no part in the campaign at all. I am not cheering on Cameron. I'm
suggesting that the local Tories made a tactical mistake with respect
to realising their goals.
Now you've got your rant out of your system, perhaps you would like to
engage with the question I actually posed?
--
Henry
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> And presumably the ones listed as just "Ind" are ones that say
> "Independent" or have no description (is this actually possible?) on
> the ballot paper?
Trish Law had no description in the Blaenau Gwent Assembly by-election.
--
Henry
Colin Rosenstiel
john....@tiscali.co.uk (JohnLoony) wrote:
You're about as "Official" as the open topped tour buses which claim to
be "Official". They answer accusations of misleading trade descriptions
by saying their services are registered with the Traffic Commissioner
and that makes them "Official".
As for Monster Raving Loonies you're a bunch of upstarts, passing
yourselves off as respectable Loonies like the true original, the
Lorimer Brizbeep Science Fiction Looney (in the 1976 Cambridge
byelection).
And that Sutch fellow stood for something like the Teenage Party when he
started. Not Loony at all.
--
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/
JohnLoony
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
> As for Monster Raving Loonies you're a bunch of upstarts, passing
> yourselves off as respectable Loonies like the true original, the
> Lorimer Brizbeep Science Fiction Looney (in the 1976 Cambridge
> byelection).
You're just jealous of my astounding success in going up from 0.39% to
0.45%. When the Lib-Lab-Con-trick hierarchy is overthrown and the
secret state archives are opened, you will discover that the
abovementioned impostor stole our party name and went back in a time
machine.
Colin Rosenstiel
john....@tiscali.co.uk (JohnLoony) wrote:
> You're just jealous of my astounding success in going up from 0.39% to
> 0.45%.
Pah! How puny can you get? Phil Sargent got 374 votes (a whole 1.0%).
> When the Lib-Lab-Con-trick hierarchy is overthrown and the
> secret state archives are opened, you will discover that the
> abovementioned impostor stole our party name and went back in a time
> machine.
You could always come to Cambridge and ask him. He still lives here. I
see him in my local from time to time.
David Boothroyd
F.W.S. Craig always used MRLP and that's good enough for me.
David Boothroyd
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 23:16:27 +0100, David Boothroyd
> <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <8vaga2he9fag245jn...@4ax.com>,
> > James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> What determines which parties you give an abbreviation of their own
> >> and which you list as Ind?
> >
> >Such a simple question with such a complicated answer.
> >
> >The question of whether a political party is worthy of an abbreviation
> >is not decided by a single factor but by agglomeration of many which
> >show whether the party is truly organised as a substantial political
> >party.
>
> OK.
>
> And presumably the ones listed as just "Ind" are ones that say
> "Independent" or have no description (is this actually possible?) on
> the ballot paper?
The ballot paper is neither here nor there. It is merely one clue
as to the reason behind a candidature. On occasions a party candidate
will have a blank description on the ballot paper (see, e.g.,
North Southwark and Bermondsey in 2001).
JohnLoony
David Boothroyd wrote:
> On occasions a party candidate
> will have a blank description on the ballot paper (see, e.g.,
> North Southwark and Bermondsey in 2001).
? who? which? what?
Also reminds me of the "Safeguard the National Health Service"
candidate in Jarrow in 2005, who was in fact a candidate of the
RCPB(ML) as part of its alternative / anti-party / worker candidates
strategy.
JohnLoony
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
> In article <1152041032.7...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> john....@tiscali.co.uk (JohnLoony) wrote:
>
> > You're just jealous of my astounding success in going up from 0.39% to
> > 0.45%.
>
> Pah! How puny can you get? Phil Sargent got 374 votes (a whole 1.0%).
It's not often that 193 votes is 2.5 times the gap between the top two
candidates. My 2005 result was thus a 25-fold improvement on my 2001
result.
> > When the Lib-Lab-Con-trick hierarchy is overthrown and the
> > secret state archives are opened, you will discover that the
> > abovementioned impostor stole our party name and went back in a time
> > machine.
>
> You could always come to Cambridge and ask him. He still lives here. I
> see him in my local from time to time.
What would be the point in that? He would only deny it. He's probably
an agent of the international imperialist bourgeoisie anyway. As Enver
Hoxha said in 1968, "It is already clear to everyone that the
bourgeoisie, reactionaries, the fascists and the hooligans with long
hair, financed by the international bourgeoisie, are making the law in
Czechoslovakia today. Will the Czechoslovak working class and the
revolutionaries allow such a thing?". It makes sense to vote Loony.
Richard Collier
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.06...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
> One of my principles is that politics should be about local people
> making
> their own choices, and not about top-down management from central
> party
> headquarters. So, yes, I do support the Bromley Conservatives in
> their
> right to choose who they want as their candidate, and to resist the
> imposition of a candidate by the party's national leader. Whether
> the
> candidate chosen was more popular than an imposed candidate would
> have
> been amongst the wider electorate is an entirely separate issue.
Indeed - it seems strange when we in the Labour Party have shown quite
clearly the dangers of too much central interference in selections, it
seems a tad strange that Cameron's rhetoric seeks to push the Tories
down the same route. I say rhetoric because I don't things his
s-called A-list has had much impact yet!
>
> Apart from this, what are "Cameron's reforms"? He's made a few vapid
> remarks,
> but if you analyse them what they actually amount to is a way of
> presenting
> the same old right-wing policies and making them sound less
> right-wing.
Whilst there is very little in politics ever amazes me these days, I
am at least startle at the way that even quite non-partisan
commentators and pundits are swallowing the seeming about turn that
Cameron is claiming not just in his own fundamental political beliefs
but in the bulk of his Party as well. The same level of fundamental
change took the best part of 15 years for the Labour Party and were
(and indeed still are) accompanied by a lot of soul-searching and
heated debate. And, a you say Matthew, often these putative changes
seem to add up to largely window dressing.
To be fair to the Tories at least locally in Sutton there does seem to
have been an influx of new activists who seem to at least grasp that
the issues facing society are complex and need more than just a
knee-jerk neo-Libertairan Thatcherite response. However they still
have a lot of reactionary deadwood to cast off.
> Why do you want to join the right-wing press by cheering on Cameron
> and
> agreeing with them that he really has made his party more moderate?
> When
> it comes to actual action to solve the growing environmental crisis,
> or
> to stop the increasing gulf between rich and poor, Cameron and his
> party
> have proposed nothing concrete whatsoever. In fact Bob Neill, as an
> old
> fashioned pro-European Tory, is probably more left-wing underneath
> than
> Cameron with his hankering for joining the Tory MEPs to the extreme
> right
> in the European Parliament. But you choose to ignore all this for
> the
> sake of running a by-election almost exclusively on personal
> slagging
> off of the front-running candidate. Sorry, that's not how I think
> politics
> should be run, and I think it's a shame to our party that we did it
> that way.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
Well said - it is a shame that more of the posters in this newsgroup
(including myself at times) are not willing to be as honest about the
things our Parties get wrong. From my conversations with those who are
not politically active, it is clear that one of the reasons for the
disconnection between politicains and the electorate is the way that
politicians all too often try to bluster through our mistakes instead
of holding our hands up and apologising sincerely. A good example of
this is Charles Clarke's recent self-serving outbursts (along the
lines of there was nothing wrong with the Home Office or his
Leadership of it). This is all the more bizarre given that just about
every Home Secretary in modern times has agreed with Reid's analysis
that it is not fit for purpose and this analysis seems to have found
resonance with most people who are its Users/Clients etc.
Richard Collier
news:1152025706.4...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
And who set you up as the arbiter of what this group is or isn't for?
As somebody who was posting on the uk.politics groups before the
current hierarchy was implemented, I recall that this groups has
alwayys been used both to discuss elections from a psephological
viewpoint and also from a party poltical viewpoint also. In many cases
the too are intertwinned. In the early days of the current hierarchy
people often crossposted to here and to uk.politics.misc but it was
soon obvious that all the racists bigots and those for who care in the
community was clearly not working had for some reason chosen the
uk.politics.misc group as their home so the cross-posting dropped off.
Moreover Matthew's points were not particular Party political - he
actually was exploring how the conduct and messages of a campaign
affect the engagement of activists and the electorate.
> The business of this newsgroup is how people
> did vote and the by-election saw a big swing from the Conservatives
> to
> the Liberal Democrats.
The issue of how swings are calculated and the difficulties of
measuring swing where three or more parties usually gain a significant
vote share has been well rehearsed om here without anyone really
getting the upperhand. It is clear that the bulk of any swing to the
LibDems came from the Labour Party and that the bulk of the Tory swing
was to that well known Party "can't be bothered to vote", given the
reduced turnout. I would predict that as long as Cameron or the Tory
candidate haven't completely screwed things up nationally or in
Bromley (I suppose the council could also put a spanner in the works
as well) then I'd be willing to bet that the Tory vote share returns
to ~50% at the next GE.
That said the LibDems should be congratulated on getting their vote
out far better than the Tories managed to - it is almost always easier
for the challenging Party, most Tory voters will have a) assumed the
Tories would win anyway and b) that the result would have bugger all
effect on the political make-up of the House and hence the Policies
pursued by Her Majesty's Govt or her Loyal Opposition and that c) the
football/tennis.sunbathing was a better use of their time! And of
course they were very good a squeezing the Labour vote in the first
real sustained period of Labour unpoularity for nearly 15 years. It
may also be a sign that despite Cameron's putative reforms that being
anti-Tory in a Troy-held seat is a strong motivator to vote (worrying
for the Tories at the next election if true). It also is a sign that,
despite Campbell's (and others such as Browne and Brake) best efforts
to sabotage this, many Labour voters still regard a LibDem as an
acceptable home for thier votes where they don't believe Labour will
win.
Matthew Huntbach
I am writing about the conduct of an election campaign, which is
certainly well within the remit of this newsgroup. Another issue which
has been raised here is about how candidates get nominated for elections,
which is also well within the remit of this newsgroup.
> Is that swing explainable? It is not explainable in terms of "people
> thought like Matthew Huntbach". Perhaps the world would be a better
> place if more people did think like you, Matthew, but that doesn't
> appear to have been the case here.
Just where am I saying that people in Bromley and Chislehurst
constituency thought like me?
> I'm not saying your answer is wrong, Matthew, but that you are not
> answering the question I posed.
The Liberal Democrats ran a campaign in the Bromley and Chislehusrt
by-election which had a short-term effectiveness, in that it brought
them much closer to winning the seat than most commentators had
supposed they would be. Do you agree with that? I do not think I
have written anything which disagrees with that.
Where we may differ is over the justification for the style of
campaigning used by the Liberal Democrats in that by-election,
and its long-term effects on the electoral prospects for the
Liberal Democrats. Both of these things seem to me to be
completely relevant topics for discussion in this newsgroup.
>>> My point is there is a mismatch here. The polls suggest people like
>>> Cameron's reforms, but the by-election votes suggest they weren't
>>> hugely impressed by the constituency Conservative party's choices. So,
>>> the question is, had the constituency Conservative party taken on board
>>> more of Cameron's approach, would they have got a bigger vote? Or is
>>> there some other explanation?
>> One of my principles is that politics should be about local people making
>> their own choices, and not about top-down management from central party
>> headquarters. So, yes, I do support the Bromley Conservatives in their
>> right to choose who they want as their candidate, and to resist the
>> imposition of a candidate by the party's national leader. Whether the
>> candidate chosen was more popular than an imposed candidate would have
>> been amongst the wider electorate is an entirely separate issue.
> It is, but it's the issue that I'm asking about.
Your suggestion, reproduced at the head of this article, was that the
Conservative Party did less well than expected in the Bromley and
Chislehurst by-election because the local party "spurned" David
Cameron and his reforms. You wrote that the Conservatives blaming
the Liberal Democrats' "dirty campaigning" for the result was just
a way of hiding the real reason, which was the local party's spurning
of Cameron. Are we agreed on this?
I am countering what you wrote, NOT to say that the Liberal Democrat
campaign was ineffective in winning votes in that by-election, but to
say that I agree with the Conservative Party criticism of it. I felt
the Liberal Democrat campaign was not in accord with the principles
that have led me to be a member of the Liberal Democrats.
>> Apart from this, what are "Cameron's reforms"? He's made a few vapid
>> remarks, but if you analyse them what they actually amount to is a way
>> of presenting the same old right-wing policies and making them sound
>> less right-wing. Why do you want to join the right-wing press by
>> cheering on Cameron and agreeing with them that he really has made his
>> party more moderate? When it comes to actual action to solve the growing
>> environmental crisis, or to stop the increasing gulf between rich and
>> poor, Cameron and his party have proposed nothing concrete whatsoever.
>> In fact Bob Neill, as an old fashioned pro-European Tory, is probably
>> more left-wing underneath than Cameron with his hankering for joining
>> the Tory MEPs to the extreme right in the European Parliament. But you
>> choose to ignore all this for the sake of running a by-election almost
>> exclusively on personal slagging off of the front-running candidate.
>> Sorry, that's not how I think politics should be run, and I think it's
>> a shame to our party that we did it that way.
> Who's "you"? The cat's mother? I didn't run the by-election campaign. I
> took no part in the campaign at all.
In the first paragraph of this article, words quoted form you seem
to be defending the conduct of the Liberal Democrats in the by-election,
and saying that the criticism of them from the Conservatives was not
valid, it was just made to hide the real reason, which was their
refusal to accept a candidate imposed on them by David Cameron.
So "you" here is the person writing as "use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk".
It appears to me that you are defending the conduct of the Liberal
Democrats in the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election. You did not
run the by-election campaign yourself, but you are defending the way
it was run.
> I am not cheering on Cameron. I'm suggesting that the local Tories made
> a tactical mistake with respect to realising their goals.
Yes, you are cheering on Cameron, because you seem to be accepting that
he has made reforms to his party which ought to cause it to become
more popular, and you seem to be saying that had only the local
Conservative Party in Bromley acted in a way more in accord with
David Cameron, it would have done better. The Liberal Democrat campaign
in Bromley also worked under this assumption, which I believe was
something which is long-term tactically mistaken. So I'm suggesting that
the Liberal Democrats made a tactical mistake with respect to realising
their goals. Why is it that you say I can't say that, but you can say
that the local Tories made a tactical mistake with respect to
realising their goals? Particularly as I am writing as someone who
did participate in the by-election, actually distributed some of
the literature I am complaining about, and have some local knowledge
of the area from my position of having been a councillor representing
an area that borders it?
Part of the reason I believe the Liberal Democrats made a tactical
mistake in the way they ran the by-election was that it was so
unedifying, in fact downright hypocritical, that it would serve to
put off people from joining the Liberal Democrats and becoming
activists and doing the things the Liberal Democrats need in order
to win their long-term aims. In this newsgroup, we have seen a huge
amount of criticism of the Liberal Democrats from supporters of other
parties, suggesting that our party consists mainly of unprincipled
people who will do anything to win elections. Regrettably, that
criticism was supported by the conduct of the Liberal Democrats in
the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election.
But another part of the reason was that in running a campaign
which criticised the local Conservative Party for failing to endorse
David Cameron's "reforms", they are suggesting these reforms are
valid and are moving the Conservative Party towards the ground held
by the Liberal Democrats. This does not seem to me to be sensible -
next time, when they are fighting a by-election where the Conservatives
ARE running a candidate parachuted in from Cameron's A-list, what
are they going to say? I think they would be better off campaigning
with the line that Cameron's "reforms" are just a way of packaging the
same old extreme right Conservative Party in a way taht makes it seem
superficially more moderate.
> Now you've got your rant out of your system, perhaps you would like to
> engage with the question I actually posed?
Well, okay, try again with it. Remind me what it was.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> <use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> The business of this newsgroup is how people
>> did vote and the by-election saw a big swing from the Conservatives
>> to the Liberal Democrats.
> The issue of how swings are calculated and the difficulties of
> measuring swing where three or more parties usually gain a significant
> vote share has been well rehearsed om here without anyone really
> getting the upperhand. It is clear that the bulk of any swing to the
> LibDems came from the Labour Party and that the bulk of the Tory swing
> was to that well known Party "can't be bothered to vote", given the
> reduced turnout.
The issue here is actually the difference that will be observed in
voting patterns between an area where there is very little local
campaigning, and an area where there is an intensive campaign run
by the Liberal Democrats. Bromley and Chislehurst used to fall into
the former category - there was very little Liberal Democrat activity
there in general elections, to a large extent because the Liberal
Democrat organisation took the tactical decision to concentrate
activity in the neighbouring constituency of Orpington. In neighbouring
boroughs such as Lewisham, activists were directed to spend some of
their time during general elections in Orpington. No-one was directed
to spend any time in Bromley and Chislehurst. In the by-election, things
were changed, there was intense Liberal Democrat activity in
Bromley and Chislehurst.
My thesis, it is hardly an extraordinary one, though it's surprising how
often commentators who don't know the party fail to latch onto it, is
that the Liberal Democrat vote isn't like the Labour and Conservative
vote. There's fewer people who will vote for the party on the basis
of its national campaign regardless of local activity, many more who
will vote for it if they are prompted to remmber its existence
through a frequent supply of locally delivered literature.
This is what we have experienced Lewisham, indeed we have been astonished
at just how big was the latent Liberal Democrat vote which would come
out for the party just as soon as it started local campaigning. And this
is why it would be fatal for the Liberal Democrats to so piss off its
activists that they stopped bothering. Indeed, the Lewisham experience
calls into question the tactics that some are suggesting the Liberal
Democrats should adopt - become more right-wing in order to attract
Conservative votes in Conservative-LibDem marginals. Why not work that
incredibly soft Labour vote in Labour-held seats?
Matthew Huntbach
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> > Matthew Huntbach wrote
> >> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> >>> Matthew Huntbach wrote
> >>>> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> >>>>> Parties that fare badly usually blame someone else before looking at
> >>>>> their own problems, thus all the bitching about LibDem canpaigning.
> >>>>> With David Cameron still doing well in the polls, perhaps much of the
> >>>>> Conservatives' problem in Bromley & Chislehurst was how the local
> >>>>> party spurned him and his reforms.
>
> >>>> In other words, the Conservative Party in Bromley chose someone THEY
> >>>> wanted, who had a local connection as the GLA member for the Bromley
> >>>> and Bexley, and who was not some empty-headed celebrity dumped on them
> >>>> by party HQ who could be assumed to act as a Cameron yes-man. Good for
> >>>> them, I'm glad their man won. He deserved it, ours with his nasty
> >>>> negative campaign did not.
> I am writing about the conduct of an election campaign, which is
> certainly well within the remit of this newsgroup. Another issue which
> has been raised here is about how candidates get nominated for elections,
> which is also well within the remit of this newsgroup.
OK, yes, Matthew, you are talking about things of relevance to uk.p.e.
You haven't answered the question I asked -- I'm not saying you're
under any obligation to do so, nor that you are wrong to take the
discussion in a different direction, I'm just trying to get over what
my question was.
> > Is that swing explainable? It is not explainable in terms of "people
> > thought like Matthew Huntbach". Perhaps the world would be a better
> > place if more people did think like you, Matthew, but that doesn't
> > appear to have been the case here.
>
> Just where am I saying that people in Bromley and Chislehurst
> constituency thought like me?
You're not. I'm saying your own views on the by-election, while
possibly entirely valid and interesting in their own right, do not
appear to explain the result seen. That's what I'm interested in: why
was the result as seen?
> > I'm not saying your answer is wrong, Matthew, but that you are not
> > answering the question I posed.
>
> The Liberal Democrats ran a campaign in the Bromley and Chislehusrt
> by-election which had a short-term effectiveness, in that it brought
> them much closer to winning the seat than most commentators had
> supposed they would be. Do you agree with that? I do not think I
> have written anything which disagrees with that.
Yes, we agree. Good.
> Where we may differ is over the justification for the style of
> campaigning used by the Liberal Democrats in that by-election,
> and its long-term effects on the electoral prospects for the
> Liberal Democrats. Both of these things seem to me to be
> completely relevant topics for discussion in this newsgroup.
I've not heard about anything that I feel is really inappropriate about
the LibDem campaign. More to the point, I think the details of the
campaign simply aren't that relevant to the broader, psephological
perspective.
In terms of long-term effects, that strikes me as a more interesting
discussion. Recent history would suggest that LibDem strategy in
by-elections (beyond the specifics of this one case) works in the
short-term *and* in the long-term.
> >>> My point is there is a mismatch here. The polls suggest people like
> >>> Cameron's reforms, but the by-election votes suggest they weren't
> >>> hugely impressed by the constituency Conservative party's choices. So,
> >>> the question is, had the constituency Conservative party taken on board
> >>> more of Cameron's approach, would they have got a bigger vote? Or is
> >>> there some other explanation?
>
> >> One of my principles is that politics should be about local people making
> >> their own choices, and not about top-down management from central party
> >> headquarters. So, yes, I do support the Bromley Conservatives in their
> >> right to choose who they want as their candidate, and to resist the
> >> imposition of a candidate by the party's national leader. Whether the
> >> candidate chosen was more popular than an imposed candidate would have
> >> been amongst the wider electorate is an entirely separate issue.
>
> > It is, but it's the issue that I'm asking about.
>
> Your suggestion, reproduced at the head of this article, was that the
> Conservative Party did less well than expected in the Bromley and
> Chislehurst by-election
... as we agree they did.
> because the local party "spurned" David Cameron and his reforms.
That's the suggestion, yes. Part of their spurning of Cameron was in
the choice of candidate.
> You wrote that the Conservatives blaming the Liberal Democrats' "dirty campaigning" for the
> result was just a way of hiding the real reason, which was the local party's spurning
> of Cameron. Are we agreed on this? [...]
Not quite. It is a natural reaction in anyone to blame others before
blaming oneself. However, this is an election campaign and the
Conservatives are being foolish if they expect their opponents to play
nice. One can have a discussion about whether certain parties or
certain campaigns are more or less dirty, but that's what election
campaigns are like, particularly by-election campaign. The next
by-election that happens, I'm sure there will be some rough 'n tumble.
I'm not wanting to promote that: I'm saying any election fighting team
have to expect and plan for that.
Given the Tories can't wave a magic wand and make everyone else play
nice, they need to think about what is under their control. The Bromley
& Chislehurst party made choices -- did the choices *they* made lead to
their losing votes?
> > I am not cheering on Cameron. I'm suggesting that the local Tories made
> > a tactical mistake with respect to realising their goals.
>
> Yes, you are cheering on Cameron, because you seem to be accepting that
> he has made reforms to his party which ought to cause it to become more popular,
No, not at all. I'm saying that polling evidence suggests that his
reforms (as they are perceived by the electorate at large) *are*
popular.
> and you seem to be saying that had only the local
> Conservative Party in Bromley acted in a way more in accord with
> David Cameron, it would have done better.
The Cameron package does well in the polls, but a local campaign that
spurns it does badly. The conclusion I draw seems fairly obvious.
> The Liberal Democrat campaign
> in Bromley also worked under this assumption, which I believe was
> something which is long-term tactically mistaken. So I'm suggesting that
> the Liberal Democrats made a tactical mistake with respect to realising
> their goals. Why is it that you say I can't say that, but you can say
> that the local Tories made a tactical mistake with respect to
> realising their goals? Particularly as I am writing as someone who
> did participate in the by-election, actually distributed some of
> the literature I am complaining about, and have some local knowledge
> of the area from my position of having been a councillor representing
> an area that borders it?
>
> Part of the reason I believe the Liberal Democrats made a tactical
> mistake in the way they ran the by-election was that it was so
> unedifying, in fact downright hypocritical, that it would serve to
> put off people from joining the Liberal Democrats and becoming
> activists and doing the things the Liberal Democrats need in order
> to win their long-term aims.
In the short term, the strategy worked. In the long term.. OK, maybe
you have a point. However, the only LibDem or potential LibDem I've
seen who has been put off by the campaign is you, and you've long been
dissatisfied with the party's direction anyway. So, I'm not saying you
don't have a point, but I don't see much evidence for it.
> In this newsgroup, we have seen a huge
> amount of criticism of the Liberal Democrats from supporters of other
> parties, suggesting that our party consists mainly of unprincipled
> people who will do anything to win elections. Regrettably, that
> criticism was supported by the conduct of the Liberal Democrats in
> the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election.
I can't say I put a huge amount of store in what some supporters of
other parties say when they criticise the LibDems!
> But another part of the reason was that in running a campaign
> which criticised the local Conservative Party for failing to endorse
> David Cameron's "reforms", they are suggesting these reforms are
> valid and are moving the Conservative Party towards the ground held
> by the Liberal Democrats. This does not seem to me to be sensible -
> next time, when they are fighting a by-election where the Conservatives
> ARE running a candidate parachuted in from Cameron's A-list, what
> are they going to say? I think they would be better off campaigning
> with the line that Cameron's "reforms" are just a way of packaging the
> same old extreme right Conservative Party in a way taht makes it seem
> superficially more moderate.
I don't think that the reforms are just about re-packaging the same old
extreme right-wing views. I think Cameron does really mean to reform
the Conservatives. That said, I don't particularly think his reformed
party (if he manages to bring the party with him) will be any better --
he'll just be making *different* mistakes.
I feel the party should campaign against the assumptions beyond
Blairism and Cameronism, for example against their belief that the
private sector always does things better.
> > Now you've got your rant out of your system, perhaps you would like to
> > engage with the question I actually posed?
>
> Well, okay, try again with it. Remind me what it was.
The Cameron package does well in the polls, but a local campaign that
spurns it does badly. Was that *why* they did badly?
--
Henry
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote
>> Where we may differ is over the justification for the style of
>> campaigning used by the Liberal Democrats in that by-election,
>> and its long-term effects on the electoral prospects for the
>> Liberal Democrats. Both of these things seem to me to be
>> completely relevant topics for discussion in this newsgroup.
> I've not heard about anything that I feel is really inappropriate about
> the LibDem campaign. More to the point, I think the details of the
> campaign simply aren't that relevant to the broader, psephological
> perspective.
I felt the personal criticisms of the Conservative Party went way over
the top, and were hypocritical. It's hardly unusual, is it, for a Liberal
Democrat candidate to come from outside the constituency and to promise
to move there if he won the election? Our candidate in Lewisham East in
2005 said exactly the same. Nor is it wrong for someone to be an MP while
remaining a councillor - we have MPs who have done the same. We even have
had at least one recently, maybe more I can't recall offhand, of our MPs
who have practised as barristers while being MPs. And to go on and on
about some position which comes to an end days after the election
anyway, I feel that's irrelevant. Isn't any MP who holds a ministerial
position, or a shaodw ministerial position doing "two jobs"? The piece
of literature I was asked to deliver on the final weekend, with its
constant attachment of the phrase "East Ender" to the Conservative
Party candidate's name, seemed to me to be plain nasty rabble rousing.
The general tone of the literature as well, with its over-emphasis on
the crime issue, and its cynical attempt to jump on the football
world cup, just seemd to me to be looking for cheap shallow votes
rather than really trying to get people to support the fullness of
our party's postion and philosophy. I'm not saying the other parties
were any better here, it's just that our literature looked to me to be
so obviously "do and say anything that will win votes". I didn't like it,
I wasn't happy delivering it.
> In terms of long-term effects, that strikes me as a more interesting
> discussion. Recent history would suggest that LibDem strategy in
> by-elections (beyond the specifics of this one case) works in the
> short-term *and* in the long-term.
>>> I am not cheering on Cameron. I'm suggesting that the local Tories made
>>> a tactical mistake with respect to realising their goals.
>> Yes, you are cheering on Cameron, because you seem to be accepting that
>> he has made reforms to his party which ought to cause it to become more
>> popular,
> No, not at all. I'm saying that polling evidence suggests that his
> reforms (as they are perceived by the electorate at large) *are*
> popular.
But what are his reforms actually? If they're about imposing a candidate
against the wishes of the local party, surely that's the opposite of the
localism we say we support? I've looked carefully at the claims to be
moving to the left, and they don't add up. Polly Toynbee in yesterday's
Guardian got it right - there's still a lot of policy aimed solely at
making life more comfortable for the very rich, misleadingly sold as
aimed at "middle England". Since when was top 1% "middle"? Well, in the
eyes of the Daily Mail, Times, Telegraph it may be. But I'm disappointed
to see Cameron's supposed move to the left accepted as a fact rather
than exposed as just a surface repackaging from many commentators who ought
to know better.
>> and you seem to be saying that had only the local
>> Conservative Party in Bromley acted in a way more in accord with
>> David Cameron, it would have done better.
> The Cameron package does well in the polls, but a local campaign that
> spurns it does badly. The conclusion I draw seems fairly obvious.
That's the point of view of the armchair politician, rather than someone
who knows the patch and was there watching it happen. I don't think whether
the local Conservative campaign was pro-Cameron or spurned Cameron was a
big issue amongst ordinary voters. Ordinary voters aren't really that
interested in politics to know or care much about that - I suspect many
of them are only vaguely aware of who Cameron is, there's been such a
big turnaround of Conservative leaders recently, it's hard to keep up.
What did work was the constant slam-slam-slam personal abuse of the
Conservative Party candidate in the Liberal Democrat literature.
It was effective, I could see why they were doing it, and if all I cared
for was winning that one by-election, it's the campaign I might have run
had I been in charge. But, sorry, it was against the principles that led
me to be a member of the Liberal Democrats, and it was hypocritical
because it used charges that could be thrown at many of our Parliamentary
candidates.
Matthew Huntbach
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> The general tone of the literature as well, with its over-emphasis on
> the crime issue, and its cynical attempt to jump on the football
> world cup, just seemd to me to be looking for cheap shallow votes
> rather than really trying to get people to support the fullness of
> our party's postion and philosophy. I'm not saying the other parties
> were any better here, it's just that our literature looked to me to be
> so obviously "do and say anything that will win votes". I didn't like it,
It is difficult to explain the fullness of a party's position and
philosophy in election leaflets. I think it makes sense for leaflets
during a campaign to remind the voters of one's party's existence and
activity in the area and in the campaign -- particularly key for
parties other than Labour and the Tories because of our electoral
system -- with room perhaps for one or two key matters. That's not to
say I don't think it's important to explain the fullness of one's
party's position and philosophy, but one does that through slower
processes -- the actions and words of one's elected representatives,
one's policies and so on. Those things, reported in the media,
available through the party's website or through talking to party
members, matter hugely, but they matter over the long term.
You don't, I suggest, convert that many people during a by-election
campaign. You need to have people generally favourable towards one's
position and then get them to turn out and vote for you. Campaign
leaflets do the latter, not the former. That's simplifying somewhat,
but that's the basic model that underlies many election campaigns as I
understand it.
> >>> I am not cheering on Cameron. I'm suggesting that the local Tories made
> >>> a tactical mistake with respect to realising their goals.
>
> >> Yes, you are cheering on Cameron, because you seem to be accepting that
> >> he has made reforms to his party which ought to cause it to become more popular,
>
> > No, not at all. I'm saying that polling evidence suggests that his
> > reforms (as they are perceived by the electorate at large) *are* popular.
>
> But what are his reforms actually? If they're about imposing a candidate
> against the wishes of the local party, surely that's the opposite of the
> localism we say we support? I've looked carefully at the claims to be
> moving to the left, and they don't add up. Polly Toynbee in yesterday's
> Guardian got it right - there's still a lot of policy aimed solely at
> making life more comfortable for the very rich, misleadingly sold as
> aimed at "middle England". Since when was top 1% "middle"? Well, in the
> eyes of the Daily Mail, Times, Telegraph it may be. But I'm disappointed
> to see Cameron's supposed move to the left accepted as a fact rather
> than exposed as just a surface repackaging from many commentators who ought
> to know better.
Yes, fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that polling
suggests his reforms (as perceived by the electorate at large) *are*
popular.
> >> and you seem to be saying that had only the local
> >> Conservative Party in Bromley acted in a way more in accord with
> >> David Cameron, it would have done better.
>
> > The Cameron package does well in the polls, but a local campaign that
> > spurns it does badly. The conclusion I draw seems fairly obvious.
>
> That's the point of view of the armchair politician, rather than someone
> who knows the patch and was there watching it happen. I don't think whether
> the local Conservative campaign was pro-Cameron or spurned Cameron was a
> big issue amongst ordinary voters. Ordinary voters aren't really that
> interested in politics to know or care much about that - I suspect many
> of them are only vaguely aware of who Cameron is, there's been such a
> big turnaround of Conservative leaders recently, it's hard to keep up.
> What did work was the constant slam-slam-slam personal abuse of the
> Conservative Party candidate in the Liberal Democrat literature.
I wasn't involved in this by-election campaign, but I have shifted from
my armchair in plenty of other campaigns! My experience is almost
exactly the opposite: that the content of campaign literature gets
little attention from the electorate, who are more swayed by media
reports and, mostly, by their general views of the parties.
Individuals' general views on the parties is something that evolves
slowly over time, but which is somewhat affected by the party leader
and the party leader's actions.
Much of the reporting over Bromley & Chislehurst was about the local
party's relationship to Cameron's agenda. If leaflets do make a
difference, then you have to consider also what the Conservatives'
literature was saying... and it wasn't saying much about Cameron. If
the Cameron name and the Cameron buzzwords have got people thinking
more positively about the Conservatives -- as polls suggest -- then the
local literature wasn't reminding people of that.
I wish the leaflets we LibDem deliver were that effective that they
alone were responsible for the massive swing recorded in this
by-election, but they're not. You need to consider our literature, the
Conservative literature, the UKIP literature etc., how the campaigns
were reported in the local and national press/media and more general
views about the parties.
By the way, IIRC, the majority of the population do know Cameron is
leader of the Conservatives in polling and it seems likely that those
who can't are those least likely to turn out to vote.
--
Henry
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote
>> The general tone of the literature as well, with its over-emphasis on
>> the crime issue, and its cynical attempt to jump on the football
>> world cup, just seemd to me to be looking for cheap shallow votes
>> rather than really trying to get people to support the fullness of
>> our party's postion and philosophy. I'm not saying the other parties
>> were any better here, it's just that our literature looked to me to be
>> so obviously "do and say anything that will win votes". I didn't like it,
>> I wasn't happy delivering it. [...]
> It is difficult to explain the fullness of a party's position and
> philosophy in election leaflets. I think it makes sense for leaflets
> during a campaign to remind the voters of one's party's existence and
> activity in the area and in the campaign -- particularly key for
> parties other than Labour and the Tories because of our electoral
> system -- with room perhaps for one or two key matters.
Please, I have been an active member of the Liberal Democrats and one
of its predecessor parties for 28 years. I do not need to be told how
to write effective campaign literature. However, I do believe it is
possible to write effective campaign literature which is positive,
which is not hypocritical, and which does not rely for its message
on personal slagging-off of the leading candidate.
> You don't, I suggest, convert that many people during a by-election
> campaign. You need to have people generally favourable towards one's
> position and then get them to turn out and vote for you. Campaign
> leaflets do the latter, not the former. That's simplifying somewhat,
> but that's the basic model that underlies many election campaigns as I
> understand it.
You don't understand how the Liberal Democrat by-election fighting
system works, do you?
>>> The Cameron package does well in the polls, but a local campaign that
>>> spurns it does badly. The conclusion I draw seems fairly obvious.
>> That's the point of view of the armchair politician, rather than someone
>> who knows the patch and was there watching it happen. I don't think
>> whether the local Conservative campaign was pro-Cameron or spurned
>> Cameron was a big issue amongst ordinary voters. Ordinary voters aren't
>> really that interested in politics to know or care much about that - I
>> suspect many of them are only vaguely aware of who Cameron is, there's
>> been such a big turnaround of Conservative leaders recently, it's hard
>> to keep up. What did work was the constant slam-slam-slam personal abuse
>> of the Conservative Party candidate in the Liberal Democrat literature.
> I wasn't involved in this by-election campaign, but I have shifted from
> my armchair in plenty of other campaigns! My experience is almost
> exactly the opposite: that the content of campaign literature gets
> little attention from the electorate, who are more swayed by media
> reports and, mostly, by their general views of the parties.
> Individuals' general views on the parties is something that evolves
> slowly over time, but which is somewhat affected by the party leader
> and the party leader's actions.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. So you suppose if instead of flooding the
constituency with a stream of literature, the Liberal Democrat
campaign had involved the distribution of one genteel election
address, the results would have been very much the same? You really
have been an armchair member of the party if you are unaware of its
very successful election-fighting technique, which is to get enough
activists to flood the area the election is being fought over with
several pieces of literature during the campaign, and to make sure
by the end of it people are thoroughly aware to the point of being sick of
it that the Liberal Democrats are standing and have strength in the area.
How do you suppose I managed to be a councillor in Downham ward for
12 years, at times when neighbouring wards with very similar profiles
showed tiny Liberal Democrat votes, if you suppose that campaign
literature doesn't achive much and most people vote largely on the basis
of what they see in the media and the party's national leader?
The idea of this is that there are a large number of people who don't
really think of voting Liberal Democrat because they suppose, from
the national media that politics is Labour v. Conservative, but when
reminded forcefully of the Liberal Democrats' existence can be
persuaded to switch. Often that involves getting them interested by
concentrating on local issues. I've been there, I've done that. It
sounds like you haven't, and your view of politics is that of the
national media which constantly misreports and misunderstands the
Liberal Democrats.
> Much of the reporting over Bromley & Chislehurst was about the local
> party's relationship to Cameron's agenda. If leaflets do make a
> difference, then you have to consider also what the Conservatives'
> literature was saying... and it wasn't saying much about Cameron. If
> the Cameron name and the Cameron buzzwords have got people thinking
> more positively about the Conservatives -- as polls suggest -- then the
> local literature wasn't reminding people of that.
My daily newspaper is the Guardian, but I don't remember seeing a
single article in it about the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election.
Maybe there was an article or two in the other quality newspapers,
but even in a constituency like Bromley and Chislehurst, only a
small minority of people read these. I doubt there was any coverage
of the by-election in the Mail, Express, Sun and Mirror, the papers
most people read, and many people don't read a paper at all. I
doubt there was anything much on the television news. I think your
idea that most people who voted in the Bromley and Chislehurst
by-election were influenced mainly by the national media coverage
of it is way off the mark.
> I wish the leaflets we LibDem deliver were that effective that they
> alone were responsible for the massive swing recorded in this
> by-election, but they're not. You need to consider our literature, the
> Conservative literature, the UKIP literature etc., how the campaigns
> were reported in the local and national press/media and more general
> views about the parties.
You really don't know much about the Liberal Democrat by-election
fighting tactic, do you?
Matthew Huntbach
Paul Evans
<ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GsWdnUcre75...@pipex.net...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.06...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
> m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
>
>> them, I'm glad their man won. He deserved it, ours with his nasty
>> negative campaign did not.
>
> question how much time the Tory would commit to being an MP, as he was/
> is already leader of the Tories on the GLA and had no intention to
> resign before the next GLA elections? Surely it was legitimate to
> question his commitment to the constituency given that he lives in the
> Docklands and has not given any indication of moving nearer to B&C
>
> By the tone of the Tory's graceless acceptance speech, I had the
> impression that we had accused him of slaughtering all the first born in
> the area as a minimum!
>
> You only need to look at the acceptance speech of our winning candidate
> in Cheadle for an example of decorum in the face of a Tory campaign that
> truly deserves the adjectives "nasty" and "personal".
>
I'd suggest that you are in denial. Pretty much everybody, even the press
that doesn't normally much care for the Conservatives, accepts that the
Lib-Dem campaign in B&C was nasty, negative and personal. You lost because
you desreved to.
How about you come clean and we might believe you next time you make
scurrilous accusations.
I see you're from CiX. Is Mark Ynys-Mon dead yet? There's another nasty
Lib-Dem bugger.
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Evans) wrote:
> I'd suggest that you are in denial. Pretty much everybody, even the
> press that doesn't normally much care for the Conservatives, accepts
> that the Lib-Dem campaign in B&C was nasty, negative and personal.
It's funny how the Tories appear to be civilised to everyone when they
win comfortably, but give them a run for their money in constituencies
they take for granted and they cry foul a la Ronaldo.
Some of the press have fallen for Tory spin but they are the ones who
are rarely friends of the Lib Dems. Some at the weekend put it down to
Tory sour grapes that they were run so close. Certainly a lot of voters
saw the winners speech as graceless and off-putting.
> You lost because you desreved to.
The Lib Dems lost because they couldn't quite believe they had a chance
of winning until the latter stages of the campaign. As a result some
regular by-election volunteers either did not visit as often as they
might have done, if at all.
That's the scary thing for the other parties: for all the talk of the
number of Lib Dem volunteer helpers in B&C, the campaign did not get
into top gear.
Ian Ridley
"I am a Liberal because I prefer progress to stagnation;
because I place the happiness of the many above the privileges
of the few; and because I believe that disastrous revolutions
are best averted by timely reforms" - George Osborne Morgan.
Colin Rosenstiel
> > You only need to look at the acceptance speech of our winning
> > candidate in Cheadle for an example of decorum in the face of a Tory
> > campaign that truly deserves the adjectives "nasty" and "personal".
> >
> I'd suggest that you are in denial. Pretty much everybody, even the
> press that doesn't normally much care for the Conservatives,
> accepts that the Lib-Dem campaign in B&C was nasty, negative and
> personal. You lost because you desreved to.
>
> How about you come clean and we might believe you next time you
> make scurrilous accusations.
>
> I see you're from CiX. Is Mark Ynys-Mon dead yet? There's another
> nasty Lib-Dem bugger.
We don't take homophobic bullying from the likes of you.
Paul Evans
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2006070...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk...
> In article <44ac0572$2...@x-privat.org>, som...@noone.remove.com (Paul
> Evans) wrote:
>
>> > You only need to look at the acceptance speech of our winning
>> > candidate in Cheadle for an example of decorum in the face of a Tory
>> > campaign that truly deserves the adjectives "nasty" and "personal".
>> >
>> I'd suggest that you are in denial. Pretty much everybody, even the
>> press that doesn't normally much care for the Conservatives,
>> accepts that the Lib-Dem campaign in B&C was nasty, negative and
>> personal. You lost because you desreved to.
>>
>> How about you come clean and we might believe you next time you
>> make scurrilous accusations.
>>
>> I see you're from CiX. Is Mark Ynys-Mon dead yet? There's another
>> nasty Lib-Dem bugger.
>
> We don't take homophobic bullying from the likes of you.
Nothing to do with homophobia. He's a thoroughly nasty piece of work who
bullied me to the extent that I ended up having to leave CiX. I just
wondered if he's dead yet.
Matthew Huntbach
> In article <44ac0572$2...@x-privat.org>, som...@noone.remove.com (Paul
> Evans) wrote:
>> You lost because you desreved to.
> The Lib Dems lost because they couldn't quite believe they had a chance
> of winning until the latter stages of the campaign. As a result some
> regular by-election volunteers either did not visit as often as they
> might have done, if at all.
How do you know there were not others who, like me, disliked the nature
of the material they were asked to deliver, and as a result didn't feel
inspired enough to return and deliver more?
Matthew Huntbach
Colin Rosenstiel
Evans) wrote:
> "Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:memo.2006070...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk...
> > In article <44ac0572$2...@x-privat.org>, som...@noone.remove.com
> > (Paul Evans) wrote:
> >
> >> I see you're from CiX. Is Mark Ynys-Mon dead yet? There's another
> >> nasty Lib-Dem bugger.
> >
> > We don't take homophobic bullying from the likes of you.
>
> Nothing to do with homophobia. He's a thoroughly nasty piece of
> work who bullied me to the extent that I ended up having to leave
> CiX. I just wondered if he's dead yet.
More rubbish I see. <plonk>
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> > Matthew Huntbach wrote [...]
Matthew, it would really would help if you *read* what I wrote. Yes,
it's valuable to flood the area with literature to make people aware
that the LibDems are standing and are locally strong -- I said the same
in an earlier post. The *number* of leaflets is important, which is why
above I talked about the *content* of that literature as being less
significant. The activity matters as it makes people realise you can
win -- the content gets less attention. Or, rather, it's a reminder of
who we are, not a detailed argument as to why we're right. More people
notice the leaflets than read them in detail.
Getting people aware "that the Liberal Democrats are standing and have
strength in the area" is vital as those who are favourably disposed to
the party will then vote for us. What those leaflets don't do so much
is get supporters of the other parties to change their political views
(although it can get them to tactically vote LibDem).
> How do you suppose I managed to be a councillor in Downham ward for
> 12 years, at times when neighbouring wards with very similar profiles
> showed tiny Liberal Democrat votes, if you suppose that campaign
> literature doesn't achive much and most people vote largely on the basis
> of what they see in the media and the party's national leader?
I'm not saying that local campaigning doesn't matter. I'm saying that
it does matter, but it doesn't (so much) change people's underlying
political views. It matters chiefly because it gets people who already
broadly agree with a party's views (or, at least, with how they
perceive a party's views) to vote for that party. People's underlying
political beliefs usually change more slowly than the timespan of a
single campaign.
> The idea of this is that there are a large number of people who don't
> really think of voting Liberal Democrat because they suppose, from
> the national media that politics is Labour v. Conservative, but when
> reminded forcefully of the Liberal Democrats' existence can be
> persuaded to switch.
Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying.
> Often that involves getting them interested by
> concentrating on local issues. I've been there, I've done that. It
> sounds like you haven't, and your view of politics is that of the
> national media which constantly misreports and misunderstands the
> Liberal Democrats.
Every campaign I've been involved in, we've won seats. When I first
started helping in Cambridge, we were in opposition -- look now. When
I first started helping in Oxford, we were in opposition -- look now.
When I first started helping in Camden, we had a mere 2 seats -- look
now. I have trod the streets too, Matthew. I suggest you've
misunderstood my point: I probably explained it badly, so I hope it's
clearer now.
> > Much of the reporting over Bromley & Chislehurst was about the local
> > party's relationship to Cameron's agenda. If leaflets do make a
> > difference, then you have to consider also what the Conservatives'
> > literature was saying... and it wasn't saying much about Cameron. If
> > the Cameron name and the Cameron buzzwords have got people thinking
> > more positively about the Conservatives -- as polls suggest -- then the
> > local literature wasn't reminding people of that.
>
> My daily newspaper is the Guardian, but I don't remember seeing a
> single article in it about the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election.
Hello? What about that infamous column by Ed Vaizey complaining about
LibDem tactics? This proves the effect the press have as you're now
critical of LibDem tactics -- clearly subconsciously influenced by the
Guardian article! ;-)
> Maybe there was an article or two in the other quality newspapers,
> but even in a constituency like Bromley and Chislehurst, only a
> small minority of people read these. I doubt there was any coverage
> of the by-election in the Mail, Express, Sun and Mirror, the papers
> most people read, and many people don't read a paper at all. I
> doubt there was anything much on the television news. I think your
> idea that most people who voted in the Bromley and Chislehurst
> by-election were influenced mainly by the national media coverage
> of it is way off the mark.
I remember the selection battle getting quite extensive reporting in
the press and TV news, more than the subsequent campaign actually.
IIRC, you don't watch TV news, so that's probably why you weren't aware
of what was reported! Former Daily Mail, now Telegraph columnist Simon
Heffer wrote extensively about Bromley, I believe, and I suspect the
Telegraph gets read by more people in B&C than the Guardian!
> > I wish the leaflets we LibDem deliver were that effective that they
> > alone were responsible for the massive swing recorded in this
> > by-election, but they're not. You need to consider our literature, the
> > Conservative literature, the UKIP literature etc., how the campaigns
> > were reported in the local and national press/media and more general
> > views about the parties.
>
> You really don't know much about the Liberal Democrat by-election
> fighting tactic, do you?
The campaign does not exist in a vacuum. Everything done in the
by-election campaign is in a wider context, including importantly
people's views of the different parties. The campaigning matters hugely
in terms of persuading people to vote LibDem, but the campaigning
doesn't (so much) turn socialists or conservatives into liberals.
That's a slower process.
--
Henry
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote
>> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. So you suppose if instead of flooding the
>> constituency with a stream of literature, the Liberal Democrat
>> campaign had involved the distribution of one genteel election
>> address, the results would have been very much the same?
> Matthew, it would really would help if you *read* what I wrote. Yes,
> it's valuable to flood the area with literature to make people aware
> that the LibDems are standing and are locally strong -- I said the same
> in an earlier post. The *number* of leaflets is important, which is why
> above I talked about the *content* of that literature as being less
> significant. The activity matters as it makes people realise you can
> win -- the content gets less attention.
If content didn't count for anything, the constituency could be flooded
with closely argued policy detailed leaflets, and it would work the
same. My argument is that the Liberal Democrat literature in the
Bromley and Chislehurst by-election was very carefully designed to
WIN votes, not just to get people who were semi-committed Liberal
Democrats anyway to vote.
> I'm not saying that local campaigning doesn't matter. I'm saying that
> it does matter, but it doesn't (so much) change people's underlying
> political views. It matters chiefly because it gets people who already
> broadly agree with a party's views (or, at least, with how they
> perceive a party's views) to vote for that party. People's underlying
> political beliefs usually change more slowly than the timespan of a
> single campaign.
The days when most people were committed supporters of one or other of
the political parties is over. Now more people would put themselves in
the "don't know" or "don't care" category (not necessarily the same).
Therefore there ARE votes to be won by election campaign material.
As I've already said, the situation is different in a Parliamentary
by-election to how it is in a Parliamentary contest in a general
election. In a general election, attention is focussed on the election
of the government, and there is fairly intensive national media
coverage. Under those circumstances, yes, election literature has
a limited effect, and elections are more as you say. But in a by-election,
attention is much more on the local representative, and the election
literature is much more central to the campaign, as there isn't the
national media coverage of the campaign in the media that there is
in a general election. that is why by-elections are more likely to get
nasty and personal.
>> My daily newspaper is the Guardian, but I don't remember seeing a
>> single article in it about the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election.
> Hello? What about that infamous column by Ed Vaizey complaining about
> LibDem tactics? This proves the effect the press have as you're now
> critical of LibDem tactics -- clearly subconsciously influenced by the
> Guardian article! ;-)
I don't recall the column, must have missed it. Anyhow, I looked it
up on the web:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1807716,00.html
and yes, I agree with what it says. The Liberal Democrat campaign
is hypocritical - Vaizey hits it right on when he says how hypocritical
it was to abuse the Conservative candidate in the by-election of
having "two jobs" because he works as a barrister when our own party
leader also works as a barrister, and I would say being party leader is
another job besides being constituency MP involving at least as much
work as being a GLA member.
But the article, I see, was published on the day before the by-election.
I formed the opinions I have expressed here on the weekend before
the by-election, four days before this article was published.
> I remember the selection battle getting quite extensive reporting in
> the press and TV news, more than the subsequent campaign actually.
> IIRC, you don't watch TV news, so that's probably why you weren't aware
> of what was reported! Former Daily Mail, now Telegraph columnist Simon
> Heffer wrote extensively about Bromley, I believe, and I suspect the
> Telegraph gets read by more people in B&C than the Guardian!
But you're a political wonk, you look out for this stuff. My own
feeling is that most people, who aren't that interested in politics,
in a by-election like this get most of their information and feeling
for it from the literature, not national media coverage.
> The campaign does not exist in a vacuum. Everything done in the
> by-election campaign is in a wider context, including importantly
> people's views of the different parties. The campaigning matters hugely
> in terms of persuading people to vote LibDem, but the campaigning
> doesn't (so much) turn socialists or conservatives into liberals.
> That's a slower process.
The number of people who would regard themselves as committed socialists
or committed conservatives now is rather small. There are a huge number
of people, I would suggest the majority of the voting population, who
are open to being persuaded.
It looks like you very much WANT this by-election to be about people
flooding back to the Conservatives because they like Cameron, but
consciously not doing so in the by-election because the Conservative
candidate there was seen as not in the Cameron camp. Well, I didn't
see much of his literature, but what I did see of it did not suggest
to me that he was fighting an extreme right-wing campaign. Had he done
well, I rather think people like you, who like Cameron, would be saying
"Look, the Cameron effect is working - the Conservatives are doing well
in by-elections and the Liberal Democrats are losing out". So this is
part of the agenda of moving the Liberal Democrats to the right "to win
back those votes lost because of Cameron", isn't it?
Matthew Huntbach
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
> *Date:* Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:47:38 +0100
The feedback I have seen from some by-election regulars who didn't go is
definitely along the lines that, if they had known earlier that were in
with a shout, they would have made a bigger effort to go to Bromley.
Matthew Huntbach
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.06...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
> m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
>> *From:* Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>
>> *Date:* Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:47:38 +0100
>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> The Lib Dems lost because they couldn't quite believe they had a
>>> chance of winning until the latter stages of the campaign. As a result some
>>> regular by-election volunteers either did not visit as often as they
>>> might have done, if at all.
>> How do you know there were not others who, like me, disliked the
>> nature of the material they were asked to deliver, and as a result didn't
>> feel inspired enough to return and deliver more?
> The feedback I have seen from some by-election regulars who didn't go is
> definitely along the lines that, if they had known earlier that were in
> with a shout, they would have made a bigger effort to go to Bromley.
Why did they believe we weren't in with a shout? A glance at the profile
of B&C suggests it's just the sort of constituency where LibDems pull off
by-election victories. In addition, we quite obviously needed to do well
here to counter-act the supposed Cameron effect.
Matthew Huntbach
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> > I'm not saying that local campaigning doesn't matter. I'm saying that
> > it does matter, but it doesn't (so much) change people's underlying
> > political views. It matters chiefly because it gets people who already
> > broadly agree with a party's views (or, at least, with how they
> > perceive a party's views) to vote for that party. People's underlying
> > political beliefs usually change more slowly than the timespan of a
> > single campaign.
>
> The days when most people were committed supporters of one or other of
> the political parties is over. Now more people would put themselves in
> the "don't know" or "don't care" category (not necessarily the same).
There are far fewer people who are committed supporters of one or other
political party, but that doesn't mean people don't still have
underlying political beliefs. Those beliefs may be vague and even
inconsistent, but they still exist.
> Therefore there ARE votes to be won by election campaign material. [...]
I never meant to imply otherwise.
> > I remember the selection battle getting quite extensive reporting in
> > the press and TV news, more than the subsequent campaign actually.
> > IIRC, you don't watch TV news, so that's probably why you weren't aware
> > of what was reported! Former Daily Mail, now Telegraph columnist Simon
> > Heffer wrote extensively about Bromley, I believe, and I suspect the
> > Telegraph gets read by more people in B&C than the Guardian!
>
> But you're a political wonk, you look out for this stuff. My own
> feeling is that most people, who aren't that interested in politics,
> in a by-election like this get most of their information and feeling
> for it from the literature, not national media coverage.
If you're not a political wonk, you don't do more than glance at the
election leaflet, or at least that's my impression. That's why leaflets
are designed to be short and simple.
> > The campaign does not exist in a vacuum. Everything done in the
> > by-election campaign is in a wider context, including importantly
> > people's views of the different parties. The campaigning matters hugely
> > in terms of persuading people to vote LibDem, but the campaigning
> > doesn't (so much) turn socialists or conservatives into liberals.
> > That's a slower process.
>
> The number of people who would regard themselves as committed socialists
> or committed conservatives now is rather small. There are a huge number
> of people, I would suggest the majority of the voting population, who
> are open to being persuaded.
People don't necessarily consider themselves as "committed socialists",
but they still have deep-rooted political beliefs about what is fair
and what is right.
> It looks like you very much WANT this by-election to be about people
> flooding back to the Conservatives because they like Cameron, but
> consciously not doing so in the by-election because the Conservative
> candidate there was seen as not in the Cameron camp. Well, I didn't
> see much of his literature, but what I did see of it did not suggest
> to me that he was fighting an extreme right-wing campaign. Had he done
> well, I rather think people like you, who like Cameron, would be saying
> "Look, the Cameron effect is working - the Conservatives are doing well
> in by-elections and the Liberal Democrats are losing out". So this is
> part of the agenda of moving the Liberal Democrats to the right "to win
> back those votes lost because of Cameron", isn't it?
I don't like Cameron. Why are you so obsessed with claiming I do,
Matthew? You are so obsessed with your usual bugbears that you try to
force every discussion you have along the same lines!
What I see, however, is Cameron doing well in the polls -- you've never
argued that point. So why did the Tories, while doing well in the
polls, do so badly in Bromley & Chislehurst? The selection of the
candidate was widely seen as a snub to Cameron's reform programme and
Cameron took a surprisingly small role in the campaign. Looks like a
possible connection to me.
--
Henry
Colin Rosenstiel
The May local election results perhaps?
Colin Rosenstiel
m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
> and yes, I agree with what it says. The Liberal Democrat campaign
> is hypocritical - Vaizey hits it right on when he says how
> hypocritical it was to abuse the Conservative candidate in the
> by-election of having "two jobs" because he works as a barrister when
> our own party leader also works as a barrister, and I would say being
> party leader is another job besides being constituency MP involving at
> least as much work as being a GLA member.
You're losing it now, Matthew. When did Ming last work as an advocate?
Having three jobs already suggests less than total commitment to being
the local MP. Otherwise he'd have given something up on becoming Tory
GLA leader you'd have thought.
> It looks like you very much WANT this by-election to be about people
> flooding back to the Conservatives because they like Cameron, but
> consciously not doing so in the by-election because the Conservative
> candidate there was seen as not in the Cameron camp. Well, I didn't
> see much of his literature, but what I did see of it did not suggest
> to me that he was fighting an extreme right-wing campaign. Had he
> done well, I rather think people like you, who like Cameron, would be
> saying "Look, the Cameron effect is working - the Conservatives are
> doing well in by-elections and the Liberal Democrats are losing out".
> So this is part of the agenda of moving the Liberal Democrats to the
> right "to win back those votes lost because of Cameron", isn't it?
You're making more sense there, though.
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote
> > It looks like you very much WANT this by-election to be about people
> > flooding back to the Conservatives because they like Cameron, but
> > consciously not doing so in the by-election because the Conservative
> > candidate there was seen as not in the Cameron camp. Well, I didn't
> > see much of his literature, but what I did see of it did not suggest
> > to me that he was fighting an extreme right-wing campaign. Had he done
> > well, I rather think people like you, who like Cameron, would be saying
> > "Look, the Cameron effect is working - the Conservatives are doing well
> > in by-elections and the Liberal Democrats are losing out". So this is
> > part of the agenda of moving the Liberal Democrats to the right "to win
> > back those votes lost because of Cameron", isn't it?
> I don't like Cameron. Why are you so obsessed with claiming I do,
> Matthew? You are so obsessed with your usual bugbears that you try to
> force every discussion you have along the same lines!
>
> What I see, however, is Cameron doing well in the polls -- you've never
> argued that point. So why did the Tories, while doing well in the
> polls, do so badly in Bromley & Chislehurst? The selection of the
> candidate was widely seen as a snub to Cameron's reform programme and
> Cameron took a surprisingly small role in the campaign. Looks like a
> possible connection to me.
I'm saying the answer to your question was an effective but nasty
campaign by the Liberal Democrats, which concentrated on personal
attacks on the Conservative Party candidate for having "two jobs" and
for not living in the constituency. The Liberal Democrats got their
retaliation in first on the crime issue, knowing that "soft on crime"
would be the line used against them, and they pushed that line so that
the "soft on crime" attack wouldn't look credible. I think that a far
more likely explanation than yours, which credits to the electorate a
way of thinking in terms of fairly sophisticated political knowledge
that I don't think the ordinary elector here would have had.
Matthew Huntbach
Paul Evans
"Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.06...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
Exactly right Matthew. The Lib-Dems wanted so badly to win this seat - they
even started the campaign while Eric Forth's body was still warm which tells
us rather a lot. They pulled out every stop - the busloads of activists from
elsewhere, the personal abuse, the name-calling, the lies and sheer
downright nastiness - all standard techniques used many times before. And
they failed. They lost. They couldn't have tried any harder and they still
lost.
It's all they deserved.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
Paul Evans
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2006070...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk...
> In article <44acb026$1...@x-privat.org>, som...@noone.remove.com (Paul
> Evans) wrote:
>
>> "Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:memo.2006070...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.co.uk...
>> > In article <44ac0572$2...@x-privat.org>, som...@noone.remove.com
>> > (Paul Evans) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I see you're from CiX. Is Mark Ynys-Mon dead yet? There's another
>> >> nasty Lib-Dem bugger.
>> >
>> > We don't take homophobic bullying from the likes of you.
>>
>> Nothing to do with homophobia. He's a thoroughly nasty piece of
>> work who bullied me to the extent that I ended up having to leave
>> CiX. I just wondered if he's dead yet.
>
> More rubbish I see. <plonk>
Actually, that's what happened..
Is he dead yet?
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
> *From:* rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel)
> *Date:* Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:19 +0100 (BST)
That could be part of it. Perhaps they also believed the media hype abut
Cameron. This coupled with recent polls showing the Tories ahead might
leave some to think that the chances of a Romsey-syle win were slight.
In reality B&C has a history of Lib Dem activity in most wards at some
point or another. We started from a 3rd place in 2005 but a healthy 3rd
place (over 20% and close behind Labour). Given the Tory own-goals we
did indeed have a chance to win. I think that word just did not get out
to enough people in time to swing the result.
Colin Rosenstiel
mhun...@hotmail.com (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
> I'm saying the answer to your question was an effective but nasty
> campaign by the Liberal Democrats, which concentrated on personal
> attacks on the Conservative Party candidate for having "two jobs"
> and for not living in the constituency. The Liberal Democrats got their
> retaliation in first on the crime issue, knowing that "soft on
> crime" would be the line used against them, and they pushed that line
> so that the "soft on crime" attack wouldn't look credible. I think
> that a far more likely explanation than yours, which credits to the
> electorate a way of thinking in terms of fairly sophisticated
> political knowledge that I don't think the ordinary elector here
> would have had.
Three jobs, actually. Seems reasonable to doubt his commitment to the
new job he was applying for, given his track record of lack of commitment?
And the crime link I saw was his lack of delivery locally as a member of
the Met Police Authority.
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Evans) wrote:
> *From:* "Paul Evans" <som...@noone.remove.com>
> *Date:* 6 Jul 2006 19:22:28 +0200
> Exactly right Matthew. The Lib-Dems wanted so badly to win this seat
> - they even started the campaign while Eric Forth's body was still
> warm
Wrong. Prove it.
JNugent
> mhun...@hotmail.com (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
>>I'm saying the answer to your question was an effective but nasty
>>campaign by the Liberal Democrats, which concentrated on personal
>>attacks on the Conservative Party candidate for having "two jobs"
>>and for not living in the constituency. The Liberal Democrats got their
>>retaliation in first on the crime issue, knowing that "soft on
>>crime" would be the line used against them, and they pushed that line
>>so that the "soft on crime" attack wouldn't look credible. I think
>>that a far more likely explanation than yours, which credits to the
>>electorate a way of thinking in terms of fairly sophisticated
>>political knowledge that I don't think the ordinary elector here
>>would have had.
> Three jobs, actually.
...one of which was known to be due to be abolished the day after the
election and well before the successful candidate would take up
Parliamentary office.
Are you aware that London has a (IIRC, unique) split between membership of
a local authority and political membership of a "police authority"?
> Seems reasonable to doubt his commitment to the
> new job he was applying for, given his track record of lack of commitment?
No, it doesn't.
Not unless you accept that every LibDem with more than one job (eg, a
"proper job" and a seat on a local authority) creates reason to doubt their
commitment to any other post applied for.
Are you saying that no Liberal or LibDem candidate for Parliament has ever
been a councillor at the time he/she sought election to Parliament?
Are you saying that no Liberal or LibDem Parliamentary candidate ever lived
outside the constituency (albeit having a made a Neill-style promise to
move into the constituency if elected) at the date of the election?
Paul Evans
<ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QbOdneVzg_A86DDZ...@pipex.net...
> In article <44ad46d4$1...@x-privat.org>, som...@noone.remove.com (Paul
> Evans) wrote:
>
>> *From:* "Paul Evans" <som...@noone.remove.com>
>> *Date:* 6 Jul 2006 19:22:28 +0200
>
>> Exactly right Matthew. The Lib-Dems wanted so badly to win this seat
>> - they even started the campaign while Eric Forth's body was still
>> warm
>
> Wrong. Prove it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5133890.stm
"Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell said he had "put a stop" to activists
who had begun campaigning before Mr Forth's funeral."
Apology awaited.
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> *Date:* 6 Jul 2006 22:55:09 +0200
But there was no campaigning going on. Only an email to ask people to
help get out the post local election "thank you" leaflets, the delivery
timetable of which had been compressed by the pending by-election.
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> busloads of activists from elsewhere,
Er, individual volunteers freely gave up their time for the campaign.
They were not "bussed in". We don't have the resources to do that sort
of thing. If work was a little less successful at the moment, I would
have helped.
> the personal abuse
Examples?
> the
> name-calling,
Examples?
> the lies
Examples?
> and sheer downright nastiness
Examples?
> - all standard techniques used many times before
Examples?
> They couldn't have tried any harder and they still lost.
We could have done a lot more, but I think that those volunteers locally
and from further afield and campaign as a whole did not pick up on the
closeness of the contest quickly enough.
Ian Ridley
"The principle of liberalism is trust in the people, qualified
by prudence. The principle of conservatism is mistrust of the
people, qualified by fear", - W.E. Gladstone.
David Boothroyd
"JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> David Boothroyd wrote:
> > On occasions a party candidate
> > will have a blank description on the ballot paper (see, e.g.,
> > North Southwark and Bermondsey in 2001).
>
> ? who? which? what?
The Communist League candidate.
> Also reminds me of the "Safeguard the National Health Service"
> candidate in Jarrow in 2005, who was in fact a candidate of the
> RCPB(ML) as part of its alternative / anti-party / worker candidates
> strategy.
Roger Nettleship. Tried in 1997 under a confusing label and did
rather well. New law comes in by 2001, has no label, does very
badly. I'd score that a success for the legislation.
--
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.
Paul Evans
<ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:75WdnSjC7N2...@pipex.net...
> In article <44ad78ad$1...@x-privat.org>, som...@noone.remove.com (Paul
> Evans) wrote:
>> *From:* "Paul Evans" <som...@noone.remove.com>
>> *Date:* 6 Jul 2006 22:55:09 +0200
>> <ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:QbOdneVzg_A86DDZ...@pipex.net...
>> > In article <44ad46d4$1...@x-privat.org>, som...@noone.remove.com
>> > (Paul
>> > Evans) wrote:
>> >> *From:* "Paul Evans" <som...@noone.remove.com>
>> >> *Date:* 6 Jul 2006 19:22:28 +0200
>
>> >> Exactly right Matthew. The Lib-Dems wanted so badly to win this
>> > seat
>> >> - they even started the campaign while Eric Forth's body was still
>> >> warm
>> >
>> > Wrong. Prove it.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5133890.stm
>>
>> "Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell said he had "put a stop" to
>> activists who had begun campaigning before Mr Forth's funeral."
>>
>> Apology awaited.
>
> But there was no campaigning going on. Only an email to ask people to
> help get out the post local election "thank you" leaflets, the delivery
> timetable of which had been compressed by the pending by-election.
Come on, Ming admitted he had to stop the campaigning!. You can hardly lie
your way out of it.