Local Authority byelection results - Thursday 14th June 2001 - Thursday 5th July 2001

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
Jul 6, 2001, 1:05:00 PM7/6/01
to
5th July 2001

Bromley LBC Cheslfield and Goddington
Conservative 2480 (52.9;+10.8), Liberal Democrat 2122 (45.2;-3.3),
Labour 88 (1.9;-7.5)
Majority 358 Turnout 40.1% Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat
Last fought 1998

Bromley LBC Mottingham
Conservative 746 (49.2;+11.9), Labour 689 (45.5;-4.8),
Liberal Democrat 80 (5.3;-7.1)
Majority 57 Turnout 24.6% Conservative gain from Labour
Last fought 1998

Conservatives gain control of LB Bromley

28th June 2001

Breckland DC East Dereham Town
Liberal Democrat 278 (51.6;+36.6), Conservative 200 (37.1;+6.7),
Green 61 (11.3;+2.4)
Majority 78 Turnout 25% Liberal Democrat gain from Labour
Last fought 1999

Charnwood DC Barrow Upon Soar Quordon
Conservative 956 (57.1;+4.7), Labour 462 (27.6;-1.1),
Liberal Democrat 257 (15.3;-3.6)
Majority 494 Conservative hold Last fought 1999

Oswestry BC Victoria Ward
Conservative 291 (44.2), Liberal Democrat 266 (40.4),
Independent 101 (15.3)
Majority 25 Conservative gain from Independent Labour
Last fought 1999 (unopposed)

Pembrokeshire CC East Williamstone
Independent I 651 (77.5), Independent II 117 (13.9),
Independent III 72 (8.6)
Majority 534 Independent hold Last fought 1999 (unopposed)

Tower Hamlets LBC Holy Trinity
Labour 1081 (53.5;+11.5), Liberal Democrat 817 (40.5;-2.9),
British National Party 74 (3.7;-1.0), Socialist Alliance 47 (2.3;+2.3)
Majority 264 Labour gain from Liberal Democrat Last fought 1998

Wyre DC Norcross Ward
Conservative 510 (55.4;-3.4), Labour 410 (44.6;+3.4)
Majority 100 Turnout 27% Conservative hold
Last fought 1999

Dereham Town Council East Dereham Town
Liberal Democrat 270 (50.5), Conservative 205 (38.3), Green 60 (11.2)
Majority 65 Liberal Democrat gain from Labour Last fought 1999

Marlborough Town Council East Ward
Liberal Democrat 455 (69.7), Conservative 198 (30.3)
Majority 257 Turnout 21% Liberal Democrat gain from Independent
Last fought 1999


21st June 2001

Castle Morpeth BC Morpeth Kirkhill
Liberal Democrat 510 (71.5;+71.5), Labour 184 (25.8;-6.9),
Green 19 (2.7;+2.7)
Majority 326 Turnout 33.4% Liberal Democrat gain from Labour
Last fought 1999

Leicester City Council Thurncourt
Conservative 1060 (43.7;-11.3), Labour 640 (26.4;-9.5),
Liberal Democrat 544 (22.4;+13.3), British National Party 115 (4.7;+4.7),
Independent 67 (2.8;+2.8)
Majority 420 Turnout 32.4% Conservative hold Last fought 1999


14th June 2001

Spelthorne BC Laleham
Conservative 532 (51.4;+0.8), Labour 339 (32.8;-6.4),
Liberal Democrat 164 (15.8;+5.6)
Majority 193 Turnout 17.9 Conservative hold Last fought 1999

Information courtesy of the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors
www: http://www.aldc.org.
Also available at http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/byelections/
Forthcoming By-elections at
http://www.aldc.org/Byelections/Forthcoming%20By-elections.htm
--
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge

Robin Moss

unread,
Jul 6, 2001, 2:43:11 PM7/6/01
to

> Breckland DC East Dereham Town
> Liberal Democrat 278 (51.6;+36.6), Conservative 200 (37.1;+6.7),
> Green 61 (11.3;+2.4)
> Majority 78 Turnout 25% Liberal Democrat gain from Labour
> Last fought 1999
>
> Dereham Town Council East Dereham Town
> Liberal Democrat 270 (50.5), Conservative 205 (38.3), Green 60 (11.2)
> Majority 65 Liberal Democrat gain from Labour Last fought 1999
>

Anyone know why Labour didn't defend these two?


Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
Jul 6, 2001, 3:12:00 PM7/6/01
to
In article <tkc1m4j...@corp.supernews.co.uk>, robin...@lineone.net
(Robin Moss) wrote:

Failed to get nominations in in time, AIUI.

--
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

Neil Tungate

unread,
Jul 6, 2001, 4:51:26 PM7/6/01
to
In article <memo.20010706...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>, Colin
Rosenstiel wrote:

>Bromley LBC Cheslfield and Goddington

>Majority 358 Turnout 40.1% Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat
>

>Bromley LBC Mottingham


>Majority 57 Turnout 24.6% Conservative gain from Labour

>Conservatives gain control of LB Bromley

I hope Councillor Adam is reading :)

--
Neil Tungate
http://www.skipper.org.uk

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 6, 2001, 5:46:22 PM7/6/01
to
"Neil Tungate" <ne...@skipper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:549cktgaq6a896nfi...@news.demon.co.uk...

> In article <memo.20010706...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>, Colin
> Rosenstiel wrote:
>
> >Bromley LBC Cheslfield and Goddington
> >Majority 358 Turnout 40.1% Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat
> >
> >Bromley LBC Mottingham
> >Majority 57 Turnout 24.6% Conservative gain from Labour
> >Conservatives gain control of LB Bromley
>
> I hope Councillor Adam is reading :)

Don't know, but Councillor Gray is. And if you too were reading, you'd have
seen that the principle reason for the two Tory gains was the collapse in
the vote of the Liberal Democrats - who also happened to be the principle
party in Administration.

Also note the differential turnout - far higher in the Lib Dem/Tory
marginal, again suggesting that the impetus was to rid Bromley of their
discredited LibDem administration.

But lets not be churlish; let me congratulate the Tories on managing to
recapture one of the most conservative areas of the country, and one they
should never have lost in the first place. How many councils do you now run
in London?


--
Councillor Adam Gray
Crabtree ward
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
http://www.crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk

David Boothroyd

unread,
Jul 6, 2001, 8:09:41 PM7/6/01
to
In article <memo.20010706...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
rosen...@cix.co.uk wrote:
>
> 28th June 2001

>
> Tower Hamlets LBC Holy Trinity
> Labour 1081 (53.5;+11.5), Liberal Democrat 817 (40.5;-2.9),
> British National Party 74 (3.7;-1.0), Socialist Alliance 47 (2.3;+2.3)
> Majority 264 Labour gain from Liberal Democrat Last fought 1998

An impressively good result for Labour. This ward only went Labour in
1994 because of a split Lib Dem vote, and the Lib Dems recaptured two
seats out of three in 1998 (with Labour only holding the third by 44
votes). The BNP vote collapsed - they got 19.5% in 1994.

--
David Boothroyd
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/election.html

Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 2:40:00 AM7/7/01
to
In article <9i5brd$kcg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:

> "Neil Tungate" <ne...@skipper.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:549cktgaq6a896nfi...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <memo.20010706...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>, Colin
> > Rosenstiel wrote:
> >
> > >Bromley LBC Cheslfield and Goddington
> > >Majority 358 Turnout 40.1% Conservative gain from Liberal
> > >Democrat
> > >
> > >Bromley LBC Mottingham
> > >Majority 57 Turnout 24.6% Conservative gain from Labour
> > >Conservatives gain control of LB Bromley
> >
> > I hope Councillor Adam is reading :)
>
> Don't know, but Councillor Gray is. And if you too were reading, you'd
> have seen that the principle reason for the two Tory gains was the
> collapse in the vote of the Liberal Democrats - who also happened to be
> the principle party in Administration.

*Principal!* Mutter, mutter.

The curiosity is that Labour's vote fell more in Chelsfield & Goddington
and the Lib Dem vote fell more in Mottingham. Looks like tactical voting
to me. Logical enough in the circumstances.

> Also note the differential turnout - far higher in the Lib Dem/Tory
> marginal, again suggesting that the impetus was to rid Bromley of their
> discredited LibDem administration.

Or the normal lower turnout in more working class areas.

Nich Starling

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 5:16:00 AM7/7/01
to
In article <tkc1m4j...@corp.supernews.co.uk>, robin...@lineone.net
(Robin Moss) wrote:

Former Councillor died during the election. Labour agent was agent for
South Norfolk and Mid Norfolk and, in my opinion, spent too much effort
trying to wreck Lib Dem chances in South Norfolk (where Labour did far
more than they did in Mid Norfolk), and as a result, Labour failed to gain
Mid Norfolk (appalling Labour campaign) and saw their vote drop in South
Norfolk, but were so obsessed with other things that they forget to get
nomination papers in.

This used to be a Lib Dem target (Lib Dems polled 37% in a 1998
by-election), but more recently they have targetted Dereham Netherd ward
(Lib Dem gain 3 months ago in a Town Council by-election) and subsequently
moved effort away from Town Ward. Some re-focussing of Lib Dem effort is
now required as they now have Councillors in Two Dereham Wards.

Cheers

Nich

Nich Starling

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 5:16:00 AM7/7/01
to
In article <9i5brd$kcg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:

> "Neil Tungate" <ne...@skipper.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:549cktgaq6a896nfi...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <memo.20010706...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>, Colin
> > Rosenstiel wrote:
> >
> > >Bromley LBC Cheslfield and Goddington
> > >Majority 358 Turnout 40.1% Conservative gain from Liberal
> > Democrat
> > >
> > >Bromley LBC Mottingham
> > >Majority 57 Turnout 24.6% Conservative gain from Labour
> > >Conservatives gain control of LB Bromley
> >
> > I hope Councillor Adam is reading :)
>
> Don't know, but Councillor Gray is. And if you too were reading, you'd
> have seen that the principle reason for the two Tory gains was the
> collapse in the vote of the Liberal Democrats - who also happened to be
> the principle party in Administration.

Joint administration actually.

Labour vote down broadly in line with Lib Dem decrease in vote.

> Also note the differential turnout - far higher in the Lib Dem/Tory
> marginal, again suggesting that the impetus was to rid Bromley of their
> discredited LibDem administration.

Suggest greater effort from both parties in Lib Dem wards.



> But lets not be churlish;

There's a first.

- Nich

Jonathan Calder

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 3:06:27 PM7/7/01
to

Nich Starling wrote...

> > But lets not be churlish;
>
> There's a first.

Nice


Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 3:48:56 PM7/7/01
to
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message

> *Principal!* Mutter, mutter.

Fair cop.

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 3:49:54 PM7/7/01
to
"Nich Starling" <ne...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message

> > But lets not be churlish;
>
> There's a first.

Well, look whose talking - but had you actually read the rest of my post,
you would of course have found that I was being entirely churlish!

Nich Starling

unread,
Jul 7, 2001, 6:27:00 PM7/7/01
to
In article <9i7pd1$g82$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:

> "Nich Starling" <ne...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > > But lets not be churlish;
> >
> > There's a first.
>
> Well, look whose talking -

You must be kidding.

> but had you actually read the rest of my
> post, you would of course have found that I was being entirely churlish!

All your postings are churlish.

> Councillor Adam Gray

- Nich

Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 6:18:00 AM7/8/01
to
In article <memo.20010706...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

> Tower Hamlets LBC Holy Trinity
> Labour 1081 (53.5;+11.5), Liberal Democrat 817 (40.5;-2.9),
> British National Party 74 (3.7;-1.0), Socialist Alliance 47 (2.3;+2.3)
> Majority 264 Labour gain from Liberal Democrat Last fought 1998

The previous election also had a Conservative candidate who gained 10.4%
of the vote.

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 2:49:41 PM7/8/01
to
"Nich Starling" <ne...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message

> All your postings are churlish.

Posts the churlish Nich Starling.

Adrian Bailey

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 11:38:00 AM7/8/01
to
Adam Gray <adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk> az alábbiakat írta a
következő hírüzenetben: 9i7pd1$g82$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

> "Nich Starling" <ne...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > But lets not be churlish;
> >
> > There's a first.
>
> Well, look whose talking -

whose>who's

A


Muttdogzz

unread,
Jul 8, 2001, 7:23:23 PM7/8/01
to
>Subject: Re: Local Authority byelection results - Thursday 14th June 2001 -
>Thursday 5th Ju
>From: rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel)
>Date: 08/07/01 11:18 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <memo.20010708...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>

>
>In article <memo.20010706...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
>rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
>
>> Tower Hamlets LBC Holy Trinity
>> Labour 1081 (53.5;+11.5), Liberal Democrat 817 (40.5;-2.9),
>> British National Party 74 (3.7;-1.0), Socialist Alliance 47 (2.3;+2.3)
>> Majority 264 Labour gain from Liberal Democrat Last fought 1998
>
>The previous election also had a Conservative candidate who gained 10.4%
>of the vote.

in that case an even better result for Labour.I am sure the Lib Dem leaflets
were pleading for Tory voters to" vote Lib Dem to keep Labour out".

Nich Starling

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 1:56:00 PM7/9/01
to
In article <9ia98c$eqp$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:

> "Nich Starling" <ne...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > All your postings are churlish.
>
> Posts the churlish Nich Starling.

Adam, Have you any idea the disdain you are held in by others on this
newsgroup ?

I occasionally converse with others on this NG regarding my postings or
regarding matters of a local nature. These people come from all political
persuasions, not just Lib Dem, and you are constantly cited for your
arrogance, pettiness and lack of "depth".

When will you grow up and understand that your "My party right or right"
attitude is just the sort of thing that leads to low turnouts.

The very way you started this whole thread will an ill thought out and
clearly poor researched attack on the Lib Dems in Orpington was a clear
sign of this. Your attempt to label the Lib Dem council as being bad,
whilst ignoring the fact that it was a Lib Dem/Labour joint
administration. The way you chose to make much of the decline in the Lib
Dem vote whilst ignoring the startling similarities between the Labour
result and the Lib Dem result. All these things add up to one thing. You
are totally incapable of objectivity.

I'll await your "churlish" and flippant response. But for once, just once,
why not look at yourself and just assess why so many others agree with me
that you are a prat !

Nich Starling

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 2:09:00 PM7/9/01
to
In article <zH527.4082$Jp5....@news1.oke.nextra.no>,
bai...@nextramail.hu (Adrian Bailey) wrote:

Well spotted. I house point for you and first in to the dinner hall !

> A

Cheers

Nich

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 9, 2001, 7:45:43 PM7/9/01
to
"Nich Starling" <ne...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message

> Adam, Have you any idea the disdain you are held in by others on this


> newsgroup ?
>
> I occasionally converse with others on this NG regarding my postings or
> regarding matters of a local nature. These people come from all political
> persuasions, not just Lib Dem, and you are constantly cited for your
> arrogance, pettiness and lack of "depth".

Oh yawn. If I'm beneath responding to, why do so? As if I give a toss.
And as if you are the impartial contributor...

> When will you grow up and understand that your "My party right or right"
> attitude is just the sort of thing that leads to low turnouts.

When it dawns on you that getting the 10th highest turnout in London in 1998
might mean I know something about combatting apathy.


> The very way you started this whole thread will an ill thought out and
> clearly poor researched attack on the Lib Dems in Orpington was a clear
> sign of this. Your attempt to label the Lib Dem council as being bad,
> whilst ignoring the fact that it was a Lib Dem/Labour joint
> administration.

Yes. Please cite the proportion of Lib Dem to Labour councillors in the
administration. It is evident to all but the most ardent Lib Dem hack that
this is a Lib Dem administration in all but name. And given that I *did*
label this Lib/Lab administration as bad - which is far more than you have
done - it hardly suggests arrogance or complacency - at least on my part...

>The way you chose to make much of the decline in the Lib
> Dem vote whilst ignoring the startling similarities between the Labour
> result and the Lib Dem result. All these things add up to one thing. You
> are totally incapable of objectivity.

No. I just treat this Lib Dem dominated newsgroup with the level of
seriousness it deserves.

By the way, any idea what the big difference was between the Lib Dem defeat
and the Labour defeat? Try comparing turnouts. In Mottingham, it was
dismal - indicating that differential turnout following the Labour victory
had an impact. In your by-election, turnout was far higher, indicating a
deliberate intent to kick the Lib Dems out. Want another objective test?
Ask yourself - in all likelihood - whether Labour won Mottingham on 7th
June, and then ask whether the Lib Dems could claim the same in your ward?
Want a further objective test? Watch what happens next May in Bromley. I
predict Labour will either maintain its number of seats, or increase them by
gaining in the "Cray" wards as the Lib Dem vote falls. A long wait, but
we'll see who is better at objectivity, perhaps?

> I'll await your "churlish" and flippant response. But for once, just once,
> why not look at yourself and just assess why so many others agree with me
> that you are a prat !

My response is this: who's the one calling who a prat? Dear oh dear - it's
*soooo* easy to debate you.

Nick Cott

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 9:03:45 AM7/10/01
to
"Adam Gray" <adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9idfva$kkc$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...

It's a shame that some Labour politicians seem so preoccupied with
attacking the Liberal Domocrats rather than trying to represent the
concerns of the electorate. I can only assume this is motivated by
extreme prejudice and fear - yes fear - that the Liberal Democrats
have the potential to win over the electorate with positive Liberal
policies.

It also worries me that there is an inability to separate political
disagreements from personal ones. I have a number of Labour friends
and get on reasonably well with most Labour councillors on the
Authority I represent. This is despite having fundamental political
diagreements with them. It seems this is a problem most associated
with some New Labour types who are intolerant of anyone who doesn't
agree with them. So much for a pluralistic democracy!

Cllr Nick Cott
Lib Dem: Newcastle, Grange Ward

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 10, 2001, 6:52:42 PM7/10/01
to

"Nick Cott" <N.M....@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message

> It's a shame that some Labour politicians seem so preoccupied with
> attacking the Liberal Domocrats rather than trying to represent the
> concerns of the electorate.

You seem to assume that the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I firmly
believe that one represents the electorate best by ensuring that the Lib
Dems are hammered into oblivion.

I can only assume this is motivated by
> extreme prejudice and fear - yes fear - that the Liberal Democrats
> have the potential to win over the electorate with positive Liberal
> policies.

Well yes, not least in Crabtree ward where we've ground you down to 5% of
the vote. You're right - I'm running scared.

> It also worries me that there is an inability to separate political
> disagreements from personal ones. I have a number of Labour friends
> and get on reasonably well with most Labour councillors on the
> Authority I represent. This is despite having fundamental political
> diagreements with them. It seems this is a problem most associated
> with some New Labour types who are intolerant of anyone who doesn't
> agree with them. So much for a pluralistic democracy!

No, I've got plenty of time for certain Tories. The reason is they have
principles (albeit completely selfish, alien ones) - you're just a bunch of
dishonest, opportunist chancers without any integrity whatsoever.

Nick Cott

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 4:35:39 AM7/11/01
to
"Adam Gray" <adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9ig1tr$d0p$6...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> "Nick Cott" <N.M....@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> > It's a shame that some Labour politicians seem so preoccupied with
> > attacking the Liberal Domocrats rather than trying to represent the
> > concerns of the electorate.
>
> You seem to assume that the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I firmly
> believe that one represents the electorate best by ensuring that the Lib
> Dems are hammered into oblivion.
>
This doesn't say much for your understanding of democracy.

> I can only assume this is motivated by
> > extreme prejudice and fear - yes fear - that the Liberal Democrats
> > have the potential to win over the electorate with positive Liberal
> > policies.
>
> Well yes, not least in Crabtree ward where we've ground you down to 5% of
> the vote. You're right - I'm running scared.
>

It's only a matter of time! Beware the Focus leaflet deliverer!

> > It also worries me that there is an inability to separate political
> > disagreements from personal ones. I have a number of Labour friends
> > and get on reasonably well with most Labour councillors on the
> > Authority I represent. This is despite having fundamental political
> > diagreements with them. It seems this is a problem most associated
> > with some New Labour types who are intolerant of anyone who doesn't
> > agree with them. So much for a pluralistic democracy!
>
> No, I've got plenty of time for certain Tories. The reason is they have
> principles (albeit completely selfish, alien ones) - you're just a bunch of
> dishonest, opportunist chancers without any integrity whatsoever.

I object to your view. How dare you presume to know anything about my
politics. You have no knowledge of me and none of Liberalism. As I
say, you are motivated by some kind of Metropolitan New Labour
prejudice. I've met your type before and I realise that nothing I say
can chance your view. I wonder why you spend so much time contributing
to a newsgroup that in your words is dominated by Liberals? Perhaps
one day you'll see the light.

Nick

Matthew M. Huntbach

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 5:13:03 AM7/11/01
to
Adam Gray (adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:

> > >Bromley LBC Cheslfield and Goddington
> > >Majority 358 Turnout 40.1% Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat
> > >
> > >Bromley LBC Mottingham
> > >Majority 57 Turnout 24.6% Conservative gain from Labour
> > >Conservatives gain control of LB Bromley

>Don't know, but Councillor Gray is. And if you too were reading, you'd have


>seen that the principle reason for the two Tory gains was the collapse in
>the vote of the Liberal Democrats - who also happened to be the principle
>party in Administration.

It was a joint LibDem/Labour administration.

> Also note the differential turnout - far higher in the Lib Dem/Tory
> marginal, again suggesting that the impetus was to rid Bromley of their
> discredited LibDem administration.

More likely the LibDems were able to bring lots of helpers to a crucial
by-election, and Labour weren't. Suggests Labour's activist base in
south-east London is crumbling.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew M. Huntbach

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:32:07 AM7/11/01
to
Colin Rosenstiel (rosen...@cix.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <9i5brd$kcg$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:

> > > >Bromley LBC Cheslfield and Goddington
> > > >Majority 358 Turnout 40.1% Conservative gain from Liberal
> > > >Democrat
> > > >
> > > >Bromley LBC Mottingham
> > > >Majority 57 Turnout 24.6% Conservative gain from Labour
> > > >Conservatives gain control of LB Bromley

> The curiosity is that Labour's vote fell more in Chelsfield & Goddington

> and the Lib Dem vote fell more in Mottingham. Looks like tactical voting
> to me. Logical enough in the circumstances.

Why should it be tactical voting? What happened was that LibDems in
south-east London were asked to help out in the Chelsfield and
Godington by-election, but not the Mottingham one. I doubt that there
was much of a LibDem campaign in the Mottingham by-election. So in
Chelsfield and Goddington, the electorate would have heard a lot from
the LibDems, and in Mottingham very little. So the fact that people
in Chelsfield and Goddington were much more likely to vote LibDem than
people in Mottingham wasn't due to a conscious decision "oh, we won't
vote for the LibDems because we have analysed the voting figures at
the last election and decided to make a tactical decision" which is what
is implied by the phrase "tactical voting". It was simply the fact that
people are swayed by the amount of material they get from the competing
candidates.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew M. Huntbach

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 7:17:13 AM7/11/01
to
Nick Cott (N.M....@ncl.ac.uk) wrote:
> "Adam Gray" <adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9idfva$kkc$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...

>>By the way, any idea what the big difference was between the Lib Dem defeat
>>and the Labour defeat? Try comparing turnouts. In Mottingham, it was
>>dismal - indicating that differential turnout following the Labour victory
>>had an impact. In your by-election, turnout was far higher, indicating a
>>deliberate intent to kick the Lib Dems out.

> It's a shame that some Labour politicians seem so preoccupied with


> attacking the Liberal Domocrats rather than trying to represent the
> concerns of the electorate. I can only assume this is motivated by
> extreme prejudice and fear - yes fear - that the Liberal Democrats
> have the potential to win over the electorate with positive Liberal
> policies.

Indeed. These pair of by-election suggest that Labour activists
couldn't be bothered to cross the border into Mottingham to defend
a joint LibDem/Labour administration, they'd rather let the Tories
win control of the borough. Had the Labour-held seat been defended with
anything like the urgency of the LibDem-held seat, the turnout would have
been higher in it, and the Tories would have had to split their
resources to try and win both seats. Instead, it looks like Mottingham
was a pushover because Labour helpers from the neighbouring boroughs
couldn't be bothered to go and help, and the Tories could put all their
effort into winning the LibDem-held one.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew M. Huntbach

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 7:22:49 AM7/11/01
to
Nick Cott (N.M....@ncl.ac.uk) wrote:
> "Adam Gray" <adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:

> > No, I've got plenty of time for certain Tories. The reason is they have


> > principles (albeit completely selfish, alien ones) - you're just a bunch
> > of dishonest, opportunist chancers without any integrity whatsoever.

> I object to your view. How dare you presume to know anything about my
> politics. You have no knowledge of me and none of Liberalism. As I
> say, you are motivated by some kind of Metropolitan New Labour
> prejudice.

Indeed. I work bloody hard to be a LibDem councillor, but I know if twenty
years ago I'd joined Labour I could be a dozy do-nothing Labour councillor
and still get re-elected every time just because I wore the right colour
rosette. If I were a dishonest opportunist, why the fuck would I choose
to get involved with a party that is never going to offer me anything
unless I work my guts out for it?

Matthew Huntbach

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:02:27 PM7/11/01
to
"Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9ih5av$43u$3...@beta.qmw.ac.uk...

> Adam Gray (adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:
>
> > > >Bromley LBC Cheslfield and Goddington
> > > >Majority 358 Turnout 40.1% Conservative gain from Liberal
Democrat
> > > >
> > > >Bromley LBC Mottingham
> > > >Majority 57 Turnout 24.6% Conservative gain from Labour
> > > >Conservatives gain control of LB Bromley
>
> >Don't know, but Councillor Gray is. And if you too were reading, you'd
have
> >seen that the principle reason for the two Tory gains was the collapse in
> >the vote of the Liberal Democrats - who also happened to be the principle
> >party in Administration.
>
> It was a joint LibDem/Labour administration.

But when one partner had 7 seats and the other 25, your desperation to share
the blame looks pathetically hollow. You're not seriously attempting to
claim an equal partnership are you?

> More likely the LibDems were able to bring lots of helpers to a crucial
> by-election, and Labour weren't. Suggests Labour's activist base in
> south-east London is crumbling.

Well - all your helpers didn't help you did they?

Believe it if you want - but this is typically partial, unbalanced,
illogical nonsense we are used to from the Lib Dems of this newsgroup. As
Matthew well knows, but wouldn't dream of acknowledging, Mottingham is a
fairly working-class adjunct to Bromley snadwiched between (Labour) Lewisham
and (Labour) Greenwich). In many ways it isn't even part of what most would
regard as Bromley.

In contrast, the ward the Lib Dems lost was overwhelmingly middle class, one
of the wards they gained when the Tories lost control in 1998, far from
natural Labour territory, part of a constituency we have never (in whatever
form) come close to winning.

There is irrefutable evidence that middle-class areas are more likely to
vote than working class areas. This is even more the case with respect to
non-national elections, particularly those coming a few days after General
Elections.

Continue to delude yourself that Mottingham is far more symbolic of Labour's
strength in Greater London (and this is Greater London Matthew, in case you
hadn't noticed) than the huge number of working and middle class
constituencies we won on 7th June all you like Matthew - it's really of no
consequence.

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:17:04 PM7/11/01
to
"Nick Cott" <N.M....@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message

> > > It's a shame that some Labour politicians seem so preoccupied with
> > > attacking the Liberal Domocrats rather than trying to represent the
> > > concerns of the electorate.
> >
> > You seem to assume that the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I
firmly
> > believe that one represents the electorate best by ensuring that the Lib
> > Dems are hammered into oblivion.
> >
> This doesn't say much for your understanding of democracy.

It is not remotely connected to my understanding of democracy. You are of
no consequence to my constituents.

> > I can only assume this is motivated by
> > > extreme prejudice and fear - yes fear - that the Liberal Democrats
> > > have the potential to win over the electorate with positive Liberal
> > > policies.
> >
> > Well yes, not least in Crabtree ward where we've ground you down to 5%
of
> > the vote. You're right - I'm running scared.
> >
> It's only a matter of time! Beware the Focus leaflet deliverer!

I dare you to try.

> > No, I've got plenty of time for certain Tories. The reason is they have
> > principles (albeit completely selfish, alien ones) - you're just a bunch
of
> > dishonest, opportunist chancers without any integrity whatsoever.
>
> I object to your view. How dare you presume to know anything about my
> politics. You have no knowledge of me and none of Liberalism.

You'll notice my use of generalisms contrasted to your deliberate attempts
to personalise this - a common tactic used not for the first time in this
thread.

However, until you can credibly explain how a principled party can on the
one hand oppose Labour for not being Labour-enough in urban areas like yours
and Conservatives for not being conservative-enough in rural areas whilst
maintaining a consistent platform, you'll be open to such challenges.

> As I
> say, you are motivated by some kind of Metropolitan New Labour
> prejudice.

You do talk a load of bourgeois bollocks.

>I've met your type before and I realise that nothing I say
> can chance your view. I wonder why you spend so much time contributing
> to a newsgroup that in your words is dominated by Liberals? Perhaps
> one day you'll see the light.

Because I enjoy winding you up - and I'm demonstrably very good at it.

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:20:29 PM7/11/01
to
"Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:9ihcu9

> Indeed. I work bloody hard to be a LibDem councillor, but I know if twenty
> years ago I'd joined Labour I could be a dozy do-nothing Labour councillor
> and still get re-elected every time just because I wore the right colour
> rosette. If I were a dishonest opportunist, why the fuck would I choose
> to get involved with a party that is never going to offer me anything
> unless I work my guts out for it?

It's hardly for me to fathom the bizarre workings of your warped mind,
Matthew!

However, to answer your question, you make an illogical assumption that your
personal motivations parallel those of your party nationally. In fact, what
you stand for in Lewisham is probably a million miles removed from what your
comrades in, say, the Vale of the White Horse say when they're seeking
election.

And therein lies the utter cant of your party - you'll say anything to win
votes. The fact you don't know what to do when you've swindled enough votes
to get yourself elected is your problem.

Adrian Bailey

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 5:45:42 PM7/11/01
to
Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> az alábbiakat írta a következő
hírüzenetben: 9ih9v7$5r2$3...@beta.qmw.ac.uk...

> > The curiosity is that Labour's vote fell more in Chelsfield & Goddington
> > and the Lib Dem vote fell more in Mottingham. Looks like tactical voting
> > to me. Logical enough in the circumstances.
>
> Why should it be tactical voting? What happened was that LibDems in
> south-east London were asked to help out in the Chelsfield and
> Godington by-election, but not the Mottingham one. I doubt that there
> was much of a LibDem campaign in the Mottingham by-election. So in
> Chelsfield and Goddington, the electorate would have heard a lot from
> the LibDems, and in Mottingham very little. So the fact that people
> in Chelsfield and Goddington were much more likely to vote LibDem than
> people in Mottingham wasn't due to a conscious decision "oh, we won't
> vote for the LibDems because we have analysed the voting figures at
> the last election and decided to make a tactical decision" which is what
> is implied by the phrase "tactical voting". It was simply the fact that
> people are swayed by the amount of material they get from the competing
> candidates.

By not campaigning the message the party gave to the voters was "We're not
competitive here, so why not stay at home or vote for whoever else
represents your views". Which is a tactical result.

Adrian
------------------------------------------------------
"Happiness is six of one and half a dozen of the other."


Adrian Bailey

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:00:35 PM7/11/01
to
Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> az alábbiakat írta a következő
hírüzenetben: 9ihcu9$69t$6...@beta.qmw.ac.uk...

Well said. I've enjoyed this thread and Adam and Nich and Nick have all made
some good points in it. I have to say that although I've slagged off Adam in
the past, he's obviously a very hard-working activist and in all likelihood
an effective councillor too.

Adrian
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
"If you're happy and you know it and you really want to show it, if you're
happy and you know it, piss off."


Muttdogzz

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:42:09 PM7/11/01
to
>Subject: Re: Local Authority byelection results - Thursday 14th June 2001 -
>Thursday 5t
>From: N.M....@ncl.ac.uk (Nick Cott)
>Date: 11/07/01 09:35 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <763e06b8.01071...@posting.google.com>

Well you could start by convincing your Lib Dem colleagues to be a little more
honest with their Focus fairytales.Isn't *Liberalism* the preserve of the
Liberal Party?

Muttdogzz

unread,
Jul 11, 2001, 6:56:29 PM7/11/01
to
>However, until you can credibly explain how a principled party can on the
>one hand oppose Labour for not being Labour-enough in urban areas like yours
>and Conservatives for not being conservative-enough in rural areas whilst
>maintaining a consistent platform, you'll be open to such challenges.
>

The best example would be the rhetoric used by the Lib Dems in two neighbouring
Urban areas,Liverpool and St Helens.St Helens controlled Labour Council decides
to consult on the closure of a failing school and all hell breaks loose,Lib Dem
councillors come out of hibernation and forests are sacrificed to churn out
Focus newsletters slamming Labour's uncaring attitude.Lib Dem controlled
Liverpool Council decide to consult on the closure of a failing school and it
is *a brave and necessary decision to safeguard the educational standards for
all children*....I think it is the duty of the Labour Party to *out* such
appalling opportunists.Democracy demands no less.


sean

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 6:11:27 AM7/12/01
to
mutt...@aol.com (Muttdogzz) wrote in message news:<20010711185629...@ng-de1.aol.com>...

The Lib Dem leaflet that amused me the most was the one in the general
election in (I think) Wells, which implied that the Lib Dems were the
only party giving the public the opportunity to vote against the
single currency.

Matthew M. Huntbach

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 7:03:54 AM7/12/01
to
Adrian Bailey (bai...@nextramail.hu) wrote:
> Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> az alábbiakat írta a következő
> hírüzenetben: 9ih9v7$5r2$3...@beta.qmw.ac.uk...

> > Why should it be tactical voting? What happened was that LibDems in


> > south-east London were asked to help out in the Chelsfield and
> > Godington by-election, but not the Mottingham one. I doubt that there
> > was much of a LibDem campaign in the Mottingham by-election. So in
> > Chelsfield and Goddington, the electorate would have heard a lot from
> > the LibDems, and in Mottingham very little. So the fact that people
> > in Chelsfield and Goddington were much more likely to vote LibDem than
> > people in Mottingham wasn't due to a conscious decision "oh, we won't
> > vote for the LibDems because we have analysed the voting figures at
> > the last election and decided to make a tactical decision" which is what
> > is implied by the phrase "tactical voting". It was simply the fact that
> > people are swayed by the amount of material they get from the competing
> > candidates.

> By not campaigning the message the party gave to the voters was "We're not
> competitive here, so why not stay at home or vote for whoever else
> represents your views". Which is a tactical result.

Sure, the parties were behaving tactically. I live next door to
Mottingham ward and asked if there was anything I could do to help,
and was told that if I wanted to help the LibDems I'd have to go all
the way to Chelsfield and Goddington.

But my point is how many of the voters were consciously aware of what
was going on? When the media talk of "tactical voting" they have in mind
people consciously going out and voting for a party which is not their
preferred one because they have looked at previous election figures and
the strength of the campaign and decided they were more likely to
affect the outcome by voting for their second choice.

While there is some of this going on, my feeling is that there is a lot
less conscious tactical voting than the media sometimes make out.
I suspect people voted Labour rather than LibDem in Mottingham because
they really did feel Labour was better than the LibDems, and people
voted LibDem rather than Labour in Chelsfield and Goddington because
they really did feel the LibDems were better than Labour. Of course,
the reason they felt like that was due to differential campaigning,
but I suspect most voters simpl weren't aware of this.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew M. Huntbach

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 7:23:46 AM7/12/01
to
Adam Gray (adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:
> "Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message

> > >Don't know, but Councillor Gray is. And if you too were reading, you'd


> > >have seen that the principle reason for the two Tory gains was the
> > >collapse in the vote of the Liberal Democrats - who also happened to
> > >be the principle party in Administration.

> > It was a joint LibDem/Labour administration.

> But when one partner had 7 seats and the other 25, your desperation to
> share the blame looks pathetically hollow. You're not seriously
> attempting to claim an equal partnership are you?

No, I am simply pointing out that the Labour Party in Bromley has
generally been supportive of the mainly Liberal Democrat administration
of the borough to the point of forming a minority part of it. If the
adminmistration were as bad as you were suggesting, the Labour Party
had the option of supporting a Conservative administration instead.

> > More likely the LibDems were able to bring lots of helpers to a crucial
> > by-election, and Labour weren't. Suggests Labour's activist base in
> > south-east London is crumbling.

> Well - all your helpers didn't help you did they?

As I have suggested, if there was a weak Labour campaign in Mottingham,
as is suggested by the turnout, that meant the Conservatives could put
much more effort into Chelsfield and Goddington.

> Believe it if you want - but this is typically partial, unbalanced,
> illogical nonsense we are used to from the Lib Dems of this newsgroup.
> As Matthew well knows, but wouldn't dream of acknowledging, Mottingham
> is a fairly working-class adjunct to Bromley snadwiched between (Labour)
> Lewisham and (Labour) Greenwich). In many ways it isn't even part of
> what most would regard as Bromley.

I've no problem acknowledging that - I pass through the ward several
times a week. It's a little more mixed than you suggest, but, yes,
large parts of it are council housing, forming a continuity with the
council housing in Grove Park in my borough.

> In contrast, the ward the Lib Dems lost was overwhelmingly middle class,
> one of the wards they gained when the Tories lost control in 1998, far
> from natural Labour territory, part of a constituency we have never (in
> whatever form) come close to winning.

Sure, thus it was entirely sensible for the Labour Party to concentrate
on Mottingham ward and not to bother running any sort of campaign in
Chelsfield and Goddington.

> There is irrefutable evidence that middle-class areas are more likely to
> vote than working class areas. This is even more the case with respect to
> non-national elections, particularly those coming a few days after General
> Elections.

But in this case these were by-elections on which hung the balance of
control of the council. Yet my Labour colleagues on Lewisham council,
actually bordering Mottingham ward were hardly aware of this by-election.
I am sure that had the Labour Party made more effort to bring in outside
help they could have held this ward and forced the Conservatives to
split their forces so that they were doing less in Chelsfield and
Goddington. The complete lack of Labour effort in Mottingham is
shown by the low turnout there.

> Continue to delude yourself that Mottingham is far more symbolic of
> Labour's strength in Greater London (and this is Greater London Matthew,
> in case you hadn't noticed) than the huge number of working and middle
> class constituencies we won on 7th June all you like Matthew - it's
> really of no consequence.

It is quite clear that the Labour Party in my part of London is suffering
from a huge decline in the number of activists. They may still be
getting votes from their national image and from the remaining habitual
Labour voters, but that inability to get activists out on the streets
knocking on doors and delivering leaflets is showing. Exactly the same
applies to the Tories - you sound just like the Tories crowing about the
number of seats they won in 1992 or 1987, and not noticing that their
activists literally dying off meant they were going to face huge problems
in the future.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew M. Huntbach

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 7:30:46 AM7/12/01
to
Adam Gray (adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:
> "Nick Cott" <N.M....@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Adam Gray wrote:

> > > No, I've got plenty of time for certain Tories. The reason is they
> > > have principles (albeit completely selfish, alien ones) - you're just
> > > a bunch of dishonest, opportunist chancers without any integrity
> > > whatsoever.

> > I object to your view. How dare you presume to know anything about my
> > politics. You have no knowledge of me and none of Liberalism.

> However, until you can credibly explain how a principled party can on the


> one hand oppose Labour for not being Labour-enough in urban areas like
> yours and Conservatives for not being conservative-enough in rural areas
> whilst maintaining a consistent platform, you'll be open to such
> challenges.

What evidence have you that Liberal Democrats opposed the Conservatives
for not being conservative-enough in rural areas? I spent part of the
general election helping Norman Baker's campaign in a thoroughly rural
part of his Lewes constituency, and saw nothing at all of this. Norman's
literature contained much the same sort of message we had in urban
Lewisham where we were up against Labour.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew M. Huntbach

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 7:34:08 AM7/12/01
to
Adam Gray (adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:
> "Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:9ihcu9

>> Indeed. I work bloody hard to be a LibDem councillor, but I know if
>> twenty years ago I'd joined Labour I could be a dozy do-nothing Labour
>> councillor and still get re-elected every time just because I wore the
>> right colour rosette. If I were a dishonest opportunist, why the fuck
>> would I choose to get involved with a party that is never going to offer
>> me anything unless I work my guts out for it?

> It's hardly for me to fathom the bizarre workings of your warped mind,
> Matthew!

> However, to answer your question, you make an illogical assumption that
> your personal motivations parallel those of your party nationally. In
> fact, what you stand for in Lewisham is probably a million miles removed
> from what your comrades in, say, the Vale of the White Horse say when
> they're seeking election.

I don't know about the Vale of the White Horse, but I've worked closely
with my party colleagues in rural Sussex where my mother lives, and
find them to be motivated by much the same things I am motivated by,
and to be saying much the same things in elections.

Matthew Huntbach

Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 8:35:00 AM7/12/01
to
In article <2a465685.01071...@posting.google.com>,
fear...@hotmail.com (sean) wrote:

> The Lib Dem leaflet that amused me the most was the one in the general
> election in (I think) Wells, which implied that the Lib Dems were the
> only party giving the public the opportunity to vote against the
> single currency.

We were the first party to make that pledge.

--
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

Nick Cott

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 9:07:26 AM7/12/01
to
fear...@hotmail.com (sean) wrote in message news:<2a465685.01071...@posting.google.com>...

Cllr Gray

I must say I think it is rather strange that you refer to the Liberal
Democrats as "a bunch of dishonest, opportunist chancers without any
integrity whatsoever". Can I perhaps ask you to defend conflicting
remarks you have made about waste incineration in June last year and
March this year? Are you in favour of it, or aganist it? I'm having
trouble understanding why a colleague of mine has been attacked by you
as a NIMBY and opportunist for opposing waste incineration whilst you
have opposed it locally.

Cllr Nick Cott
Lib Dem: Grange
Newcastle City Council

Mike.Drew

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 10:32:51 AM7/12/01
to

Adam Gray wrote:

> "Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:9ihcu9
>
>> Indeed. I work bloody hard to be a LibDem councillor, but I know if twenty
>> years ago I'd joined Labour I could be a dozy do-nothing Labour councillor
>> and still get re-elected every time just because I wore the right colour
>> rosette. If I were a dishonest opportunist, why the fuck would I choose
>> to get involved with a party that is never going to offer me anything
>> unless I work my guts out for it?
>
>
> It's hardly for me to fathom the bizarre workings of your warped mind,
> Matthew!
>
> However, to answer your question, you make an illogical assumption that your
> personal motivations parallel those of your party nationally. In fact, what
> you stand for in Lewisham is probably a million miles removed from what your
> comrades in, say, the Vale of the White Horse say when they're seeking
> election.

Well, here in farily leafy South Gloucestershire, I find that I agree
with practically all of Mathews contributions.

>
> And therein lies the utter cant of your party - you'll say anything to win
> votes. The fact you don't know what to do when you've swindled enough votes
> to get yourself elected is your problem.

I have seen pleanty of examples of both Tories and Labur politicians
saying different things in different places. In fact I have seen both
the same Tory Councillor and the same Labour Councillor saying oposite
things when they were on the former Avon County Council and Northavon
Council.

I will admit that some Lib Dems see things differently in different
areas but that is natural the party is made up of individuals who try to
fit their philosophy to their area. Labour and Tories also do it. The
difference appears to be is that we see that as a natural outcome.

How do you explain (for example) that Labour (and I understand, the
other parties) campaign for a bypass in Hastings but the Labour Party
opposed it in Government?


>
>
>
> --
> Councillor Adam Gray
> Crabtree ward
> London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
> http://www.crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk
>
>

--
Mike Drew
South Gloucestershire Council - 37 Lib Dem, 23 Lab, 10 Con
Web Site: http://www.southglos.gov.uk/
Yate Town Council - 22 Lib Dem, 0 anyone else!
Web Site: http://www.southglos.gov.uk/yate__menu.htm

Mike.Drew

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 10:36:43 AM7/12/01
to

Muttdogzz wrote:

The Liberal Democrat Party is the Liberal Party merged with the SDP. I
have no doubt that if the SDP had never happened that the Liberal Party
would look any different to the Liberal Democrats as we now are.

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 1:27:19 PM7/12/01
to
"Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:9ik1c2

> No, I am simply pointing out that the Labour Party in Bromley has
> generally been supportive of the mainly Liberal Democrat administration
> of the borough to the point of forming a minority part of it. If the
> adminmistration were as bad as you were suggesting, the Labour Party
> had the option of supporting a Conservative administration instead.

Absolutely - and they're paying the price for their lack of sense.

> It is quite clear that the Labour Party in my part of London is suffering
> from a huge decline in the number of activists. They may still be
> getting votes from their national image and from the remaining habitual
> Labour voters, but that inability to get activists out on the streets
> knocking on doors and delivering leaflets is showing. Exactly the same
> applies to the Tories - you sound just like the Tories crowing about the
> number of seats they won in 1992 or 1987, and not noticing that their
> activists literally dying off meant they were going to face huge problems
> in the future.

Well, the problem for Labour, if anything, was the big lead and the lack of
any real threat from the other parties (with the notable exception of
Romford) not ageing membership. Our membership is actually rather young.
Therein lies a different "problem".

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 1:39:43 PM7/12/01
to
"Mike.Drew" <Mike...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message

>
> I will admit that some Lib Dems see things differently in different
> areas but that is natural the party is made up of individuals who try to
> fit their philosophy to their area. Labour and Tories also do it. The
> difference appears to be is that we see that as a natural outcome.
>
> How do you explain (for example) that Labour (and I understand, the
> other parties) campaign for a bypass in Hastings but the Labour Party
> opposed it in Government?

I'm delighted that you raised this issue: what were the views of the Lib
Dems locally, and how does this view square with the Lib Dems' national
claim that they are the greenest of all the parties. Your example is invalid
because I'm comparing what you say in one area with what you say in another.
If you can demonstrate that Labour has discussed the Hastings bypass in
another local authority area, and taken a different view on it, there *may*
be a debate here - otherwise keep trying.

Let's look at another example of the height of Lib Dem cant. In the Newbury
by-election, where the issue of the Newbury bypass was then a major concern,
the Lib Dems in Newbury town backed the bypass (because it would remove cars
from the town centre) whilst the Lib Dems in the rural surrounds campaigned
against it (because it would add cars to these areas).

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 1:41:04 PM7/12/01
to
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20010712...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...

> In article <2a465685.01071...@posting.google.com>,
> fear...@hotmail.com (sean) wrote:
>
> > The Lib Dem leaflet that amused me the most was the one in the general
> > election in (I think) Wells, which implied that the Lib Dems were the
> > only party giving the public the opportunity to vote against the
> > single currency.
>
> We were the first party to make that pledge.

Whether you were or not, the apparent claim of your literature in Wells was
a lie, wasn't it Colin?

Adam Gray

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 1:44:18 PM7/12/01
to
"Nick Cott" <N.M....@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message

> I must say I think it is rather strange that you refer to the Liberal


> Democrats as "a bunch of dishonest, opportunist chancers without any
> integrity whatsoever". Can I perhaps ask you to defend conflicting
> remarks you have made about waste incineration in June last year and
> March this year? Are you in favour of it, or aganist it?

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to visit my website. Secondly,
perhaps you would be so kind as to quote these alleged "conflicting remarks"
instead of just alluding to them - another typical Lib Dem smear attempt.

>I'm having
> trouble understanding why a colleague of mine has been attacked by you
> as a NIMBY and opportunist for opposing waste incineration whilst you
> have opposed it locally.

Again, please don't hide behind weasel words - if you're claiming I've
accused someone, name them and quote me.

Muttdogzz

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 2:27:39 PM7/12/01
to
>Subject: Re: Local Authority byelection results - Thursday 14th June 2001 -
>Thursday 5t
>From: "Mike.Drew" Mike...@bris.ac.uk
>Date: 12/07/01 15:36 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B4DB6D8...@bris.ac.uk>

Are you sure?the Liberal Party are forthright in the criticism of the LD's and
the betrayal of Liberalism.

David Boothroyd

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 2:30:56 PM7/12/01
to
In article <memo.20010712...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,

rosen...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> In article <2a465685.01071...@posting.google.com>,
> fear...@hotmail.com (sean) wrote:
>
> > The Lib Dem leaflet that amused me the most was the one in the general
> > election in (I think) Wells, which implied that the Lib Dems were the
> > only party giving the public the opportunity to vote against the
> > single currency.
>
> We were the first party to make that pledge.

Disingenuous or what?

The Liberal Democrats would be urging a Yes vote. The Lib Dem candidate
in Wells would be urging a Yes vote. Any voter who did not remember that
may have got the impression that the Lib Dems were anxious to let voters
stop the UK joining the Euro zone.

--
David Boothroyd
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/election.html

Nich Starling

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 4:29:00 PM7/12/01
to
In article <9iknl5$k39$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:

> "Mike.Drew" <Mike...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> >
> > I will admit that some Lib Dems see things differently in different
> > areas but that is natural the party is made up of individuals who try
> > to
> > fit their philosophy to their area. Labour and Tories also do it. The
> > difference appears to be is that we see that as a natural outcome.
> >
> > How do you explain (for example) that Labour (and I understand, the
> > other parties) campaign for a bypass in Hastings but the Labour Party
> > opposed it in Government?
>
> I'm delighted that you raised this issue: what were the views of the Lib
> Dems locally, and how does this view square with the Lib Dems' national
> claim that they are the greenest of all the parties.

The Lib Dems also agree that some urban areas are blighted by pollution
and that some by-passes are necessary. You choose to take "green" to be
"opposed to anything" that is mechanical. You are wrong to do so.

> Your example is
> invalid because I'm comparing what you say in one area with what you say
> in another.

Your example is invalid because you take one policy in isolation and claim
it covers all areas of transport policy.

> If you can demonstrate that Labour has discussed the Hastings bypass in
> another local authority area, and taken a different view on it, there
> *may* be a debate here - otherwise keep trying.

So you think it is wrong for party to campaign, for example, in Norfolk
and oppose building incinerators and in Sussex and support them, but you
see absolutely nothing wrong in a party in Sussex to campaign for a road,
but for the same party to oppose it in government.

Of course, you see nothing in anything Labour do.


> Let's look at another example of the height of Lib Dem cant. In the
> Newbury by-election, where the issue of the Newbury bypass was then a
> major concern, the Lib Dems in Newbury town backed the bypass (because
> it would remove cars from the town centre) whilst the Lib Dems in the
> rural surrounds campaigned against it (because it would add cars to
> these areas).

The rural surrounds were also party of the Newbury constituency. You are
seeking to make up things that did not happen. David Rendell was clear in
his support for the by-pass and never sought to hide this.

Again, funny that you see nothing wrong in what Labour do in Sussex. But
when you incorrectly suggest that the Lib Dems might have done this
elsewhere, you seek to denounce it.

Hypocrite !
>
> --
> Councillor Adam Gray

- Nich

Nich Starling

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 4:29:00 PM7/12/01
to
In article <20010712142739...@ng-mp1.aol.com>,
mutt...@aol.com (Muttdogzz) wrote:

But the Liberal Party are nothing to do with the Lib Dems. They "adopted"
the name. Its like me setting up a Conservative Party, if the Tories ever
changed their name, and then condemning the Tories. You wouldn't then say
that I was the legitimate voice of Conservatism.

- Nich

David Boothroyd

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 6:30:12 PM7/12/01
to
In article <B773CDDE9...@hack.powernet.co.uk>,
66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:
> In article <david-12070...@election.demon.co.uk>,
> da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) wrote:
>
> > Disingenuous or what?
>
> This from the corrupt bastards who cynically and deliberately outright lied
> about electoral reform in their manifesto for the last Parliament.

I did not write any manifestos for the last Parliament.

Adrian Bailey

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 6:07:41 PM7/12/01
to
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> az alábbiakat írta a következő
hírüzenetben: david-12070...@election.demon.co.uk...

> > > The Lib Dem leaflet that amused me the most was the one in the general
> > > election in (I think) Wells, which implied that the Lib Dems were the
> > > only party giving the public the opportunity to vote against the
> > > single currency.
> >
> > We were the first party to make that pledge.
>
> Disingenuous or what?
>
> The Liberal Democrats would be urging a Yes vote. The Lib Dem candidate
> in Wells would be urging a Yes vote. Any voter who did not remember that
> may have got the impression that the Lib Dems were anxious to let voters
> stop the UK joining the Euro zone.

Don't be silly, David. You're usually more sensible than this.

Adrian


Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 6:41:00 PM7/12/01
to
In article <9iknl5$k39$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
adam...@crabtree-lbhf.fsnet.co.uk (Adam Gray) wrote:

Er, no. Given that the only gap in the improved A34 from Oxford to
Southampton was choking the middle of Newbury there was minimal local
opposition to the idea of completing a job outsiders had started long
before and lumbered the poor people of Newbury, whether in the town or the
rural surrounds.

They should never have closed the parallel railway of course.

If you're trying to make out that Labour has never taken contradictory
positions in different areas on the environment then you are more deranged
than you appear to be.

Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 6:41:00 PM7/12/01
to
In article <20010712142739...@ng-mp1.aol.com>,
mutt...@aol.com (Muttdogzz) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Local Authority byelection results - Thursday 14th June
> >2001 - Thursday 5t
> >From: "Mike.Drew" Mike...@bris.ac.uk
> >Date: 12/07/01 15:36 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3B4DB6D8...@bris.ac.uk>
> >
> >
> >
> >Muttdogzz wrote:

[snipperoo]

> >> Well you could start by convincing your Lib Dem colleagues to be a
> >> little more honest with their Focus fairytales.Isn't *Liberalism* the
> >> preserve of the Liberal Party?
> >
> >The Liberal Democrat Party is the Liberal Party merged with the SDP. I
> >have no doubt that if the SDP had never happened that the Liberal
> >Party would look any different to the Liberal Democrats as we now are
>
> Are you sure?the Liberal Party are forthright in the criticism

All six of them.

> of the LD's and the betrayal of Liberalism.

FFS learn to use apostrophes.

Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 6:41:00 PM7/12/01
to

> In article <memo.20010712...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
> rosen...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <2a465685.01071...@posting.google.com>,
> > fear...@hotmail.com (sean) wrote:
> >
> > > The Lib Dem leaflet that amused me the most was the one in the
> > > general election in (I think) Wells, which implied that the Lib Dems
> > > were the only party giving the public the opportunity to vote
> > > against the single currency.
> >
> > We were the first party to make that pledge.
>
> Disingenuous or what?

Not at all. Accurate.

> The Liberal Democrats would be urging a Yes vote. The Lib Dem candidate
> in Wells would be urging a Yes vote. Any voter who did not remember that
> may have got the impression that the Lib Dems were anxious to let voters
> stop the UK joining the Euro zone.

We are the party of democracy, honest democracy. We believe the case for
the Euro is strong enough to be put honestly to the public.

David Boothroyd

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 7:15:53 PM7/12/01
to
In article <uDp37.227$S46....@news1.oke.nextra.no>, "Adrian Bailey"

I do not detect the presence of an argument here.

David Boothroyd

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 7:18:08 PM7/12/01
to
In article <memo.20010712...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
rosen...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> In article <david-12070...@election.demon.co.uk>,
> da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) wrote:
> > In article <memo.20010712...@rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
> > rosen...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> > > In article <2a465685.01071...@posting.google.com>,
> > > fear...@hotmail.com (sean) wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Lib Dem leaflet that amused me the most was the one in the
> > > > general election in (I think) Wells, which implied that the Lib Dems
> > > > were the only party giving the public the opportunity to vote
> > > > against the single currency.
> > >
> > > We were the first party to make that pledge.
> >
> > Disingenuous or what?
>
> Not at all. Accurate.
>
> > The Liberal Democrats would be urging a Yes vote. The Lib Dem candidate
> > in Wells would be urging a Yes vote. Any voter who did not remember that
> > may have got the impression that the Lib Dems were anxious to let voters
> > stop the UK joining the Euro zone.
>
> We are the party of democracy, honest democracy. We believe the case for
> the Euro is strong enough to be put honestly to the public.

That is not what the Wells leaflet (reported above) says, though, is
it? It says that if you want to vote against the Euro, vote Lib Dem.
Why didn't it say 'if you want to vote for the Euro, vote Lib Dem'?

The Lib Dems don't half squeal when you call them on what their leaflets
say.

Nigel Ashton

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 7:51:28 PM7/12/01
to
In article <david-13070...@election.demon.co.uk>, David
Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes

Can anyone actually quote what this leaflet actually said. Otherwise the
discussion is a tad pointless.

The earlier poster wasn't sure what constituency it was from, so can
hardly have been quoting from it.

--
Nigel Ashton
"Moab is my washpot"

Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
Jul 12, 2001, 8:09:00 PM7/12/01
to