How to avoid Lib Dem by election batterings
July 19th, 2006-
What Labour and the Tories could do to defend themselves
Anybody with any doubt about the power of the Lib Dem by-election machine should check out the excellent “British Parliamentary By Elections Since 1945″ site where election literature from almost every campaign has been collected and is available to view on line.
-
Quite simply the party is so far ahead in finding vote-switching messages and creating effective vehicles to communicate them that virtually every Tory and Labour seat in the country is vulnerable.
Just looking at the Bromley and Dunfermline material and you can understand why the party pulled off such spectacular performances. But is there anything that the big party duopoly could do to deal with the challenge? How do you avoid by election disasters at the hands of the Lib Dems? Here’s my four part guide.
1. Try to stop by elections in the first place. Don’t allow self-inflicted wounds like allowing MPs to take jobs that require them to resign. These are optional by elections which can land you in trouble. Also introduce strict health screening for prospective candidates in winnable seats and for those standing again. Provide advice and support so existing MPs can enjoy a healthier life-style.
2. Starve the Lib Dems of cash to fight campaigns. Looking through the by election site archives and it’s clear that the Lib Dems spend the maximum allowed expenses of £100,000 very effectively. So the Tories and Labour, as part of the election spending review that seems certain to follow the “cash for peerages” affair, could suggest a much lower limit. This could all be dressed up as “cleaning up” politics but in reality the objective would be to impede Ming Campbell’s party.
3. Choose candidates from the ethnic minorities. In the frenzied atmosphere of a by election they are likely to be less vulnerable to negative campaigning. The Lib Dems would find it harder to use messages like “a local man/woman for the job” for fear of being accused of running a racist campaign. Cynical - yes. Effective - probably.
4. Go negative right from the start. Labour’s successful defences at Birmingham Hodge Hill and Hartlepool in 2004 were based on highly effective negative attacks on the Lib Dem candidates. Research and find an aspect of their background that you can make into a campaign issue. Find a chink if their armour and go for it time and time again.
Because by elections provide the oxygen that drives the Lib Dems the party takes them very seriously. Much is run from a central unit that springs into action within hours of a by election becoming a possibility. Labour are quite good here but the Tories appear to be some way behind.
Will all this work? I don’t know - but when the next by election is called I’ll probably be betting on the Lib Dems.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Excellent article, Mike. Plenty of food for thought. I am convinced that item 4 is (unfortunately) going to be necessary in future by-elections for the Conservatives - particularly where we are defending. The trick will be to find a way of going negative effectively, without overdoing it as seems to have happened at Cheadle.
Further to that, I think your last point is also very well taken. We need to develop the same sort of centralised by-election unit that clearly operates in Cowley Street. A Tory equivalent of Lord Rennard wouldn’t go amiss either. Personally, I think we should try to get Lynton Crosby back.
“The trick will be to find a way of going negative effectively, without overdoing it as seems to have happened at Cheadle.”
Perhaps the trick is to find and use real vulnerabilities, as in the case that the candidate is not local, not invite them, as suggesting that the Lib Dem candidate ia a rapist, when he clearly isn’t.
Of course there are vulnerabilities which shouldn’t be used against the opponent even if they are true, such as his or her ethnic background or sexual orientation, that kind of accusations may backfire.
“Invite” should obviously be “invent”. It seems it’s too early in the morning for me to write here.
2 - “Personally, I think we should try to get Lynton Crosby back.”
Perhaps Mike Smithson fancies a change of job…
I am sorry but there is something that seriously needs challenging here, and that is the idea that Birmingham Hodge Hill was some sort of triumph for Labour.
Places > England > West Midlands > Birmingham and Coventry > Birmingham Hodge Hill
Birmingham Hodge Hill
LABOUR HOLD - Liam Byrne
The 2005 general election
Votes Share
%
Liam Byrne, Labour 13,822 48.6
Nicola Davies, Liberal Democrat 8,373 29.5
Deborah Thomas, Conservative 3,768 13.3
Denis Adams, British National Party 1,445 5.1
Adrian Duffen, UK Independence Party 680 2.4
Azmat Begg, Peace and Progress Party 329 1.2
Labour majority: 5,449
Time of declaration: May 06 2005 04:31
Turnout: 52.7 %
2004 By-Election
Votes Share
%
Liam Byrne, Labour 7,451 36.5
Nicola Davies, Liberal Democrat 6,991 34.2
Stephen Eyre, Conservative 3,543 17.3
John Rees, Respect - the Unity Coalition 1,282 6.3
James William Starkey, National Front Protect Our Children’s Future 805 3.9
Mark Kenneth Wheatley, English Democrats 277 1.4
James George Hargreaves, Operation Christian Vote 90 0.4
Labour majority: 460
Time of declaration: July 16 2004 02:35
Turnout: 37.9 %
The 2001 general election
Votes Share
%
Terry Davis, Labour 16,901 63.9
Debbie Lewis, Conservative 5,283 20.0
Tracey O’Brien, Liberal Democrat 2,147 8.1
Lee Windridge, British National Party 889 3.4
Parwez Hussain, PJP 561 2.1
Dennis Cridge, Socialist Labour Party 284 1.1
Vivian Harvey, UK Independence Party 275 1.0
Ayub Khan, Muslim 125 0.5
Labour majority: 11,618
Time of declaration: June 08 2001 03:07
Turnout: 47.9 %
2004 By-Election
Votes Share
%
Liam Byrne, Labour 7,451 36.5
Nicola Davies, Liberal Democrat 6,991 34.2
Stephen Eyre, Conservative 3,543 17.3
John Rees, Respect - the Unity Coalition 1,282 6.3
James William Starkey, National Front Protect Our Children’s Future 805 3.9
Mark Kenneth Wheatley, English Democrats 277 1.4
James George Hargreaves, Operation Christian Vote 90 0.4
Labour majority: 460
Time of declaration: July 16 2004 02:35
Turnout: 37.9 %
Hartlepool was a bit better but hardly a result to be overly proud of.
Are you labouring under the delusion that the Tories lost the Bromley by-election? Because under the above standards it should be going down as a model of how the Tories should run a by-election! A vote share dropping by a mere 11% and a victory by a comfortable margin.
Oops, rather too many figures posted there.
Alex i think the point is that the Lib dems failed to win these seats. Close results simply dont give the Libs the publicity burst they need. The very aggressive Labour tactics ensured they held Hodge hill the night they lost leicester South and then held Hartlepool. Losses in either of the two would have been a disaster.
Another interesting question: why some Lib dem campaigns take off and others dont? Actually the Lib dems have a very mixed record in by-elections…what is it that causes some campaigns to “take off” and others to stall?
8 - did you see my last paragraph, mark?
Alex…sorry not used to this time in the morning:)
and my mind is full of what may happen in tommorows county council by election in llandrillo yn Rhos (Rhos on Sea)
Alex 6. In terms of the way it was reported July 15th 2004 was presented as a “score draw”. The Lib Dems won Leicester South but failed to take Birmingham Hodge Hill. The Labour PR machine managed this brilliantly.
Bromley was presented as a Tory disaster - the party machine handled it appallingly.
Perceptions not numbers are what matter.
LibDem by-election tactics that they all seem to have in common:
Spend money
Deliver leaflets
Organise your mutual aid well
Turn it into a two horse race
Use tabloid style newspapers
High profile through media
Use “third party” quotes
Effective use of web sites
I think the reason’s are more prosaic than your excellently colourful article suggests.
Few people are going to take the trouble vote for for the government in a by-election when they don’t need the seat. It’s not the British way to pat them on the back!
Similarly for the Tories. They might still have those who vote for them but few people like them. Not enough to give then a nod of encouragementit when it makes no difference anyway.
Which leaves the plucky little Lib Dems who everyone likes (as long as they don’t get enough seats to cause damage).
My God Roger, I think we almost agree. Only point I’d wade away from you is on the Tories - I don’t think they are universally hated in the way that you say. I think the LibDems do well at personality-not-politics and also the only-we-can-win-here syndrome. LibDems do “negative” very well without seeming too negative. Because of this, the LibDems always present themselves as challengers in a way that the Tories can’t.
Lib Dems do well when they are the “antipolitics”/”none of the above option”. You have to close this down. What unpopular choices will they make?
The difference between Labour’s literature in Brent East and in Hodge Hill/Hartlepool is stunning. Even as a Lib Dem, though, I think the attacks on Jody Dunn’s gaffe were justified - it was a pretty indefensible thing to say. There was also a chink in the armour at Hodge Hill - you can argue the rights and wrongs of phone masts, lack of evidence for harm etc, but if people responded to the attack I don’t blame them.
I’ll bet 99% of party political literature never gets looked at. The most voters will see of a campaign is local TV and posters in windows. And Orange is a better ‘call to action’ colour than blue.
That Liam Byrne is a pretty dodgy geezer. In my view the Lib Dems lost out in Hodge Hill by not going firmly negative on him.
17. Worst of all are the Labour posters in that horrible, heavy, trendy late-90s typeface. Every time I look at it it reminds me of what I dislike about Labour - the heavy-handedness and forced conformity and the rictus smiles. The brick-shaped
new Labour
new Britain is the worst.
I think that all parties use pretty low tactics in by-elections. The reasons the other two parties have such a go at the Lib Dems is that the Lib Dems have a more effective by-election machine, bussing in people from all over turning a constituency, if targeted into a sea of orange.
Bromley was a surprisingly good result. I judge whether or not a seat is targeted by whether I get a begging letter for money from the party or not. There were begging letters for Romsey, Dunfermline, Leicester South, Birm HH, Brent E. There was no begging letter for Bromley or Livingstone. So I don’t think these were identified as winnable at the outset; in hindsight Bromley was winnable.
In terms of “low tactics” anything the Lib Dems have done in recent years is no worse than implying the Lib Dem in Cheadle was a criminal, or that Jody Dunn is a friend of criminals. (For that matter, Cherie Blair, as a lawyer is just aa much a friend of criminals on occasions.) In fact these were crasser and more transparent as rubbishing other candidates; Lib Dem tactics are more subtle than this. There is often a strong emphasis on localism.
All the proposals so far to tackle the Lib Dems at by-election lack imagination ………… some more useful ideas :
1. Ban Lib Dems under the new Glorification of By-Elections Act.
2. Despatch Lord Rennard to Belmarsh on the death of any MP.
3. Deceased MP’s to be considered “alive” for parliamentary purposes until the dissolution of parliament and stuffed MP’s wheeled through on the nod during divisions.
4. Close down all veggie restaurants in by-election seats. Quiche and lentils to be banned in supermarkets.
5. Introduce “pass laws” restricting Lib Dems to their own streets.
6. Introduce French “burka laws” on the wearing of sandals.
7. Merge the Lib Dems with the Conservatives !! … who’d presently notice the difference !!
8. Send foreign policy expert Ming on a 4 year fact finding visit to the Middle east.
19 - yes, they strike me as an attempt at “authoritarianism with a human face”. Those happy peasants delivering another bumper stack of leaflets this year. The beloved leader. It brings to mind socialism realism art of the Stalinist era.
Off topic:
Time and time again we are hearing the BBC use John Reid’s phrase “not fit for purpose” to describe the Home Office.
Except it is not Reid’s phrase. It was a couple of months ago that Ming asked in PMQs “Is the Home Office fit for purpose?”
Of course, Ming screwed up the delivery, by sitting down, standing up again, and then repeating the question, and Blair, amid laughter, rubbished it. But, with the latest news of lack of controls in the system, it looks as if the old geezer had a point that the new Home Sec agrees with.
Plenty for the tories to learn. But when Mr Maude said after the B & C shambles ‘I don’t think we should get involved in this sort of negative campaigning’, its apparent that they are not interested in learning.
In one sense, these bye-election successes for the LDs don’t matter. But the tories know that the LDs will defend their marginal seats at the next GE as a series of bye-elections. A sharper political operator than DC would be putting his own Rennard/A Campbell (and teams) in place as a matter of urgency.
“but when the next by election is called I’ll probably be betting on the Lib Dems.”
well, maybe it’s better to wait to see where (if) it’ll happen. I wouldn’t bet on the Libdems winning Na h-Eileanan an Iar, even in a by election.
Btw, Kate Hoey seems headed for troubles with a couple of CLPs asking to take actions against her because she’s chairing an organization aimed to unseat Lab MPs.
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2006/7/19/85136/3426
24. It was a sensible thing to say. You can’t certainly go on TV saying that you’ll find a dirty campaigns. Then what you do is a different thing. Even the Libdems claim to run positive campaigns. Even Lambeth Labour said they run a positive campaign (even if the opponents claim the opposite)
Na h-Eileanan an Iar - yes, I think the Lib Dems would not even come close here.
Rather difficult to bus in hundreds of activists for the weekend. And rather a low base to start from.
27. And I suppose they don’t know Gaelic well enough
20 I agree that the Emails put out by Lord R did not indicate that he thought anything better than a decent 2nd place was achievable in Bromley . I suspect he is probably wishing he had been rather more optimistic in his campaign .
Apart from attacking weaknesses in other party’s candidates and policies , it is essential to be prepared for their attacks on yours and react quickly and strongly to counter them . I think this was a weakness in Hartlepools where the Labour attacks on Jody Dunn could have been turned round to her benefit . The Conservatives in Bromley had no answer to the 3/4 job Bob charges partly of course because they were true .
I can forsee a future Lib Dem campaign portraying the Conservatives as an extreme right wing little England party wishing to break up the Union and leave the EU threatening the jobs of people working in industries that depend on exports to Europe . There are numerous quotes ready to be used on sites such as Conservativehome to “prove” that is true .
17. “I’ll bet 99% of party political literature never gets looked at.”
Roger, the Lib Dems must be paying you to propgate this sophistry!
18. As for Liam Byrne, you are totally right. Think of Hilary Armstrong with her hair all fallen out and the charisma taken away and you are not far off the mark. It should be treated as a by-election equivalent of a war-crime to have allowed this little &*^$ into the House. But the Lib Dems literature there was not as good as in Leicester South on the same day and the ‘Respect’ kids were up to all sorts of tricks preventing the most effective squeeze.
It is amazing really what by-election luck does. If it were not for the fall out between Libs and Owenites, Hague for instance would have been blitzed into oblivion in Richmond. I wonder where (and when) he might have turned up. Possibly leader now if he’d started his MP career a bit later.
20. I think that’s the difference. Attacking Jody Dunn for saying something disparaging about prospective constituents = fair enough. Calling her a friend of criminals for defending criminal suspects = out of order.
30 - agree with your comment on Hague. It is interesting when people get elected “too early”. Had Stephen Twigg come a creditable second to Portillo in 1997, he would have been given a nice safe seat in 2001. He would now be in the Cabinet.
Had Nicol Stephen not inexplicably been beaten in Kincardine in the 1992 GE, having won the by-election in the marginal seat in 1991 easily, he would be a senior Lib Dem figure in Westminster, not deputy first minister of Scotland.
Had David Mellor held his seat in 1997, he would be a backbencher.
Time and time again we are hearing the BBC use John Reid’s phrase “not fit for purpose” to describe the Home Office.
Except it is not Reid’s phrase. It was a couple of months ago that Ming asked in PMQs “Is the Home Office fit for purpose?”
Ming did say it first (on May 3), but Reid did use the phrase himself in from of the Home Affairs Committee on May 22
However, I want to be straight with the Committee today and honest with you because I believe that, despite these advances, in the wake of the problems of mass migration that we have been facing our system is not fit for purpose.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhaff/uc775-ix/uc77502.htm
I’ve just gone to the site you mentioned above to see the literature from Bromley. It’s interesting. The Lib Dems stuff looks horribly designed with far too much information on all pages-but it looks energetic. And if no-one reads it but just glances you’re left with the impression of energy and ideas and a party on a budget. No fancy designers here!
Their newspaper mock-ups are particularly clever in that all their basaic campaign themes are there as tabloid headlines. “3 JOBS BOB”- “2 HORSE RACE”. I wouldn’t have realized they were Lib/Dem leaflets. Clever stuff.
The Tory leaflets were more predictable and better designed so probably more easily ignored. Lots of blue and lots of pictures of the candidate. The Lib dems had many fewer pictures of the candidate but used his name more and in much bolder type. Probably more important to remember the name than the face? The other theme that came over from the Tory leaflets was patriotism and the English flag. The candidate was upright with distinguished grey hair. And so was their literature. I was surprised that the Candidate had himself photographed with a shopper who looked at least six inches bigger than him. candidates don’t usually advertise the fact that they’re short.
UKIP was dark purple. A colour that reminds some of a long time ago and others it makes feel sick. Rather like the party. Everything neatly laid out. Everything boxed. The design like the colour looked like something from the ’50’s. A neat shot of Farage,his party name above, his name below. Definately not a party for women-nothing feminine about it-and not a party for anyone who doesn’t starch their shirts!
Labour was safe and warmish but quite unmemorable. Friendly uncluttered design which looked safe and worthy but not new or exciting
33 - More capital should be made of this. It’s a bit late now, as I think we have understudies at PMQs today. But a question like:-
“The Home Secretary now admits the HO is not fit for purpose? Has the PM changed his opinion on this since 3 May?”
Liam Byrne was protrayed as some New Labour guru - a man from business. But he had been part of the Hewitt team at Anderson´s before a spell as an advisor in government (on secondment, I believe). Last of all he made a lot of money selling american IT to …the government.
Liam Byrne is a pretty decent bloke and a cracking campaigning constituency MP. RESPECT didn’t cost the LDs the by-election there, that was down to their appalling choice of candidate - an apologist for the mobile phone industry whose job it was to persuade councils to let masts appear wherever the companies wanted - a candidate whose day job directly opposed LD campaigns across the country and in Birmingham.
I was on the ground in Hodge Hill and it was closely fought, but we won it. Nokia was defeated by precisely those tactics that usually benefit the LDs.
32. Twiggy can find a seat next time. But I think you’re right about his career.
I think Alex is right to point out that Hodge Hill was only a relative success for Labour and the swing was grim, so one needs to be wary of portraying it as a model - if the seat had been less safe to start with we’d have lost on that swing. One needs to bear in mind the need to avoid disillusioning supporters if the message is too overwhelmingly negative. I spent a great deal of time helping in the Leicester South by-election, and some of the leaflets I saw (not only one party was to blame) were frankly disgusting - just abusive rubbish which would have put off most sensible people from voting at all. I’m a hardened campaigner with 50 years on the doorstep, but if I had to put out stuff like that all the time I’d go back to computing.
Anecdote time…I did enjoy one moment, though. The LibDem candidate was Asian-born, running against Peter Soulsby. I ran into one of those Labour-BNP floater types on the doorstep. He clearly hadn’t taken in any details about the candidates, but: “I’ve always voted Labour, but I’m not gonna vote for you this time, you’re all over them ethnic minorities.” I didn’t say a word, just smiled cryptically and walked off. When the LibDems won, the only consolation was the thought of him grinding his teeth as he discovered who his new MP was. With luck he’s emigrated.
[31] Valeire wrote calling Jody Dunn a friend of criminals for defending criminal suspects = out of order - indeed, but an effective dog-whistle for those who didn’t want their next MP to be a lawyer of any sort…
How did the big 2001-2005 by-elections fare in the subsequent GE e.g. Hodge Hill, Leicester South and Hartlepool?
41. Do you mean in terms of results?
GE results (comparison with byelection):
Hodge Hill:
Lab 48.6% (+12.1)
LD 29.5% (-4.7)
Hartlepool:
Lab 51.5% (+10.8)
LD 30.4% (-3.8)
Leicester South
Lab 39.3% (+10)
LD 30.6% (-4.3)
Brent East:
LD 47.5% (+8.38)
Lab 38.8% (+5.04%)
I haven’t helped in a by-election since 1990, so have probably got all this wrong, but aren’t the priorities in this order…
1) Get your own vote out. Use canvass returns (if available). This is more important if you had a big vote last time. Just go and find these people and frogmarch them to the polling station. Many of them never vote against you, but you must get them to vote.
2) Try to stop your main competitor getting their vote out. Campaign negatively, and rubbish the main opposition. Perhaps you’ll turn some of these people off politics altogether and they won’t vote at all. That’s fine as it means fewer votes against you. There were plenty of stay at home Tories in Bromley.
3) Squeeze the opposition. Two horse race. Lend us your vote as you’d rather have us than them.
4) Find an issue to send a message to the country. Whether it’s “Thatcher out” (Eastbourne 1990); “End the poll tax” (Ribble Valley 1991) “Labour is loony” (Bermondsey 1982); “Stop the war” (Leicster South 2004).
5) Lastly, a few positive messages on the candidate, and some local issues - hospitals are always good, as is transport.
21. Jack W - nice one.
37 Take a lead from Nick Palmer and post under your real name , Liam .
Just an observation: Labour run their most negative campaigns against female candidates. Perhaps the real dog whistle is “a woman should not have a good job.”
46. Or maybe your female candidates are just more gaffes prone and so easy to attack.
Mike Weatherly is the Tory candidate in Hove according to ConHome.
He stood in Pavillion last time, he’s a Crawleyt councillor and he wasn’t on the A List
Interesting discussion about Birmingham Hodge Hill. I was active in the campaign and it was obviously not a stunning victory for Labour and given another week Nicola would have won. There were many reasons why Labour held the seat - one is at http://colin-ross.org.uk/news/9.html
The 2005 result was a very good result for the LibDems there (again I was involved) with limited work.
The boundary changes for the seat are VERY interesting with the addition of Bordesley Green which has two Liberal Democrat Councillors out of three. The results for the constituency on the new boundaries from the 2006 local elections, which Alex didn’t give/have were:
Labour 42.7%
Lib Dem 32.7%
Conservative 8.7%
BNP 11.0%
Green 3.1%
Other (UKIP?) 1.8%
Colin
45. Pot and Kettle??
49. I think that if Labour is ahead by 10% even in the locals, they should hold comfortably in a GE.
50 - I do post under my real name LOL
Are there any cases where a seat was just retained in a by-election, only to be lost in a General Election? Or where a seat has changed hands in a by-election, has the majority in terms of percent increased at a subsequent GE?
If not, then by-elections will almost always represent a high-water mark for a challenger.
53. “Or where a seat has changed hands in a by-election, has the majority in terms of percent increased at a subsequent GE? ”
Theater increased her majority in BE
53 - Brent East? Think Teather managed to increase her majority at the GE. Also, how long do you go for… Southwark N & Bermondsey is now a Lib Dem stronghold, but not sure how the elections have gone since the by as to how it got there.
53. Darlington 1983. Labour hold in March, gained by the Tories in June.
55.”Southwark N & Bermondsey is now a Lib Dem stronghold, but not sure how the elections have gone since the by as to how it got there.”
Byelection: 27.2%
1983: 15%
1987: 7.7%
1992: 26.1%
1997: 8.3%
2001: 26.2%
2005: 14.3%
so up and down all over the years.
56. Kevin, do you sometimes post by chance on LabourHome?
56. were the boundaries the same?
Interesting article Mike.
Personaly I don’t like negative campaigning, and would prefere it if we kept ammunition for when we needed it, and had covered the bases with rebutals of all bad news before the start of the campaign.
53 - Yes, Ossie O’Brien retained Darlinton for Labour in the March 1983 by-election only to lose the seat a few weeks later in the June General.
58. Probably not - the boundary changes in 1983 took account of the changes in the county boundaries after the 1974 local government reorganisation, so there were some major changes. I’ll have a look.
Brent East: good point!
Darlington: special case, as it was seen by many as 3 way fight in by-election (as followed just after Bermondsey); Alliance did surprisingly badly in by-election and were probably squeezed by Tories in GE.
62 - Hmmm, is there ever a by-election which isn’t a “special case”?
OT. I must say that giving up ones slavish support for a particular party is quite liberating. I strongly recommend it. Yesterday I might have been prepared to change my mind if Margaret Beckett had said nothing but to-day even her head on tower bridge wouldn’t be enough.
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty I’m free at last!
61. According to the Times Guide, Darlington’s boundaries were unchanged between 1979 and 1983.
57. Andrea, no I haven’t posted there yet.
65. Thanks Kevin. I had a Kevin having a sort of go at me there and I wondered if it was you.
RE 64, Roger, What did Becket say that upset you so?
65: Since the BOPCRIS website doesn’t seem willing to give me any page scans today I can’t read the boundary commission report, so I can only assume that you’re right and there weren’t!
64 - had Mark Oaten or Simon Hughes become Liberal Democrat leader, I would have resigned immediately. Had Kennedy stayed much longer and the party continued as a policy-light crowdpleaser, I would not have renewed by membership. After the GE, when I got begging letters etc from the LDs, I sent them back saying “no donation till there is a leadership change.” I said the same with begging phone calls.
Under Ming, I will hang on. There are some good policies coming out now - for the first time in about 15 years, and a bit of edge. Not sure about today’s announcement “Life should mean for life.” Haven’t scrutinised it yet, but the rhetoric is Oaten’s tough liberalism.
I should be saying “Join us” to Roger, but I lack the preachiness to be bothered to. Enjoy your freedom; I came close to freedom but remain on the inside.
69 “on the inside” - albeit of another political prison.
53. As I’ve posted elsewhere, it’s only happened 4 times since the war.
South Down 1986(be) UUP hold, 1987 SDLP gain
Darlington 1983(be) Lab hold, 1983 Con gain
Dundee E 1973(be) Lab hold, 1974F SNP gain
Bolton E 1960(be) Con hold, 1964 Lab gain
The Lib Dems have never achieved it. The closest they came was…
Colne Valley 1963(be) Lab hold, 1964 Lab hold, 1966 Lib gain
I suppose a lot of this depends on how you define ’success’.
I think I am right in saying that the swing against the Tories in Bromley was lower than the swings against Labour in Hodge Hill and Hartlepool? So we don’t really know if Labour’s negative tactics worked. Labour used equally negative tactics in Leicester South - some pretty nasty racist stuff in fact - but still lost.
Yet again we have the dreadful sight of people talking about negative campaigning as a laudable activity. Come back to reality - it is not, it is a cancer on the body politic and those who indulge in it are responsible for the destruction of politics in the eyes of the ordinary voter.
Fight elections on policies and on what you would *do*, even (if you can) on your record.
Rather than fighting a negative campaign with a negative campaign attack the negativity and provide an altenative. In an age where parties are aping each other to win the votes thnat are left you are slipping inexorably into the abyss by not just aping policies but aping tactics.
Regarding Mike’s other points I don’t see anything wrong with slashing the expenditure limit, it fits in with the need for parties to rein in their spending (and attempt to extort it from taxes at your peril) and such profligacy is borderline immoral.
That I vote lib dem at elections at the moment is probably because the national picture is the one which enters my consciousness, if I had to vote after enduring the rubbish that by elections now produce I would do what many obviously do and abstain. I’m not one to be conned.
The more that activists delight in how they destroy others the more people despise the activists. Winning should not be at any cost.
37 - so basically does a perfectly normal job which is completely within the law? If you oppose these masts shouldn’t you be campaigning for the (Labour) Government to change them rather than attacking a Lib Dem candidate?
42 -
“2) Try to stop your main competitor getting their vote out. Campaign negatively, and rubbish the main opposition. Perhaps you’ll turn some of these people off politics altogether and they won’t vote at all. That’s fine as it means fewer votes against you. There were plenty of stay at home Tories in Bromley.”
How can anyone read that and feel proud?
67. She said Israel’s destruction of Lebanon was “Quite understandable” and she would not ask them to stop firing……..I have too many friends there to hear that and anyway the destruction of any country is NOT understandable particularly one which has tried as hard as Lebanon. I shot an award winning commercial for them called “Environment” Everyone gave of their time for free and the passion these people had for rebuilding the country after their civil wars was quite humbling.
75 - nobody says it’s right. It’s pretty disgusting actually. But it’s what all parties do. And when done effectively, unfortunately it works. So how can it be stopped?
Don’t forget to tune in for Prescott’s questions on BBC Parliament now.
75 ukpaul. You’ll never stop negative campaigning and in some ways nor should you. In Bromley the Tories selected a worthy but easily attackable candidate. The 3 Jobs Bob attack was negative but had a element of truth and resonated with the public. Should the Lib Dems have held back ? IMO no.
Also, we the public should be too hypocritical about negative campaigning. Most like a juicy fight with the candidates mud wrestling in the gutter ….. thongs optional !
77 - I’m afraid that ‘it works’ is no excuse, neither is that ‘all sides do it to some degree’. For one you can contact your parties leadership and say that, if it continues, you will cease your membership. Anyone who doesn’t do something similar is, to my mind, complicit in that sort of activity.
As neither a member or activist of any political pary I don’t have that power. I don’t count in the eyes of parties until they solicit my vote so my complaint can only reside in my words here today.
On the by-election runner up going on to win the seat - Chesterfield is a good example - although it took 3 general elections for the Lib Dems to take the seat.
UKPaul. It seems you miss the sublety of campaigning. Take the trouble to look at the leaflets from Bromley and you’ll see something much more multi faceted than just positive versus negative campaigning. The secret is to get over several messages. Some about the candidate some about the policies and some about the opposing candidate and their policies. All quite reasonable things to do and having looked at the leaflets from that campaign most done with a sureness of touch that M&S would be proud of.
“For Brutus was an honorable man….” an early example of negative campaigning.
The most effective way of impeding the Lib Dem by election machine is to adopt my point 2 above. The current by election expenses limit is £100,000 - in a General Election the maximum is each seat is is just over £7,000 in a county seat plus 7p for each elector. That makes a maximum of little more than £12,000.
Bringing the two figures into line - which on the face of it sounds entirely reasonable - could reduce the amount of Lib Dem literature by seven-eights.
i can see some horse-trading on this when the parties are discussing the funding of political parties.
82 - I certainly do understand the difference between what is intended and how it is communicated. No party will ever admit that it is being primarily negative and the subtlety you refer to cannot fail to be there given the nature of a campaign. This does not change, however, the underlying and often unspoken attitude.
I’d be very interested in seeing figures regarding who has abstained in by elections and why, but I doubt that that sort of study exists.
73 ukpaul I agree with you entirely. The Lib Dems here in Colchester are masters of all things negative…..and that’s about it. It was one of the reasons why the turnout here in the GE was so low. It would make a refreshing change for the Lib Dems to campaign on the benefits of their candidates and policies rather than constantly slinging mud at the opposition.
Again, I do not mean to justify negative campaigning by parties, but the media are dreadful at it. Look at the Sun in 1992 “Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?”. The tabloid press are just as bad.
Isn’t Ed Balls an unpleasent character. Sounds like a smug sixth former. Surely he can’t be a future chancellor!!
87 - yes, not like that lovely George Osborne. So mature, real gravitas, nothing smug… fine Chancellor he will be!
86 - My contempt for Mr Murdoch knows no bounds so I can only agree!
(My comments also apply to all parties, wherever and whenever they fit).
85 Camulodunum. Turnout in Colchester has followed national trends since Roman times …. indeed in the last election it improved by 1.5% …… so you can’t blame Roberticus Russellia for that one.
88 - is there anywhere one can bet on the next Shadow Chancellor? - surely there’ll be a change in a year or so.
Not exactly sure what you mean by negative campaigning (playing the [wo]man and not the ball?). I would say comparing and contrasting your party/ candidate with the other party candidate was not only reasonable but absolutely mandatory in a democracy. I wouldn’t want anyone to hold back from saying the things they honestly believe to be true.
What I’m sure many people on this site find utterly depressing is when you talk to people who have no idea of a party’s policy which affects them substnatially and still vote the illogical way - even if it is for you.
I have no particularly problem with eg Labour pointing out the Huntley votes policy. On the other hand my Labour opponent said I opposed something which I explicitly did not - using taxpayer’s money to do it as well. That I think was negative and should not have happened.
It is very difficult to do a qualitative analysis of something if not in comparison with something or someone else. Even “We have the cheapest prices” is negative to those who dont.
91 - Not that I know of. Obviously Betfair has the next Chancellor market.
Re Roger at 76, Did she realy say that? Umm… I think our foreign policy is going barking mad.
93 - But that is a positive message, ‘their prices are inflated’ is not. To take an electoral example, stating that your candidate lives in the constituency is fine but leading with the other candidates not doing so is negative. It’s a fine line but usually it is a line.
I think the wheels have rather come off our foreign policy since Iraq went so spectacularly wrong. I think I have been right in saying more people have been killed in Iraq than Lebanon this past week which is saying something, and something truly awful at that.
Althought not a fan of Chirac in general he at least said what I believe to be true about the Israeli action, which is more than anyone else has.
Campbell asking exactly the right question on the middle east. This is a time where he should shine, the governments toadying to the US in allowing Israel time to bomb Lebanon is unconscionable.
I don’t think the trick is just in being negative - look at what happened to the Conservative campaign in Cheadle. It’s about convincing the public that you are on their side and share their ideas and aspirations. (I thought that the ‘Are you thinking what we’re thinking?’ slogan from the Tories last year could have been a big winner)
We seem to catpure the mood well, and are relentless at getting our message home through well-presented and enthusiastically delivered leaflets.
And maybe, just maybe, that in a single consitituency election people actually like what the Lib Dems say and how they conduct themselves. In a general election, voters want to select a government, but in a by-election voters go with who they most want representing them.
99 - I think by elections are increasingly seen as (or have they always been) a way of punishing the incumbent party, sometimes nationally sometimes locally. I’d like to think that wasn’t the case but the sort of campaigns run only reinforce that view.
97. Pretty clear, I think, whose side Chirac would have been on in ‘l’affaire Dreyfus’.
88 My Boss (a complete and total Tory) came back from a lunch with Ed Balls a few days ago and was completely overwhelmed by him - his confidence, his competence and his technocratic mastery of his brief. I confess I was surprised.
Excellent summertime fun in the Commons - Prescott and a Tory MP being ticked off by the Speaker during DPMQs, Cameron and Blair gleefully biffing one another over the former’s policies to date and the latter’s recent series of climbdowns. Top stuff.
92. Yes. Pointing out your opponent’s flaws is a vital part of a healthy democracy. The line is between honest and dishonest, not ‘positive’ and ‘negative.’
102. Probably is when he’s not being countered.
102. Ed Balls is certainly no fool. His flaws are rather personal and political.
[99] “Negative” is a simpler message to sell compared to actually putting forward a complicated platform, we are reduced to “They are bad” and it raises far less questions than actually saying somthing positive- hence the temptation to go negative in the first place. However, as we know, going negative does carry plenty of risks. Not least because you can make yourself look totally negative by doing so, so the key thing is balance.
The irony is that the Lib Dems actually have a relatively sophisticated message in their core principles - Socialism is dead and Conservatism (in the Cornerstone sense) is pretty unpopular. So when Lib Dems are taken seriously they can do a whole lot better. So Mike (Yo Smithson) is right- going negative early on the Lib Dems can work.
I think Mike’s point 2 is a red herring. The by-election spending limits were increased in the mid 1990s (after Mid Staffs) I believe. Most of the Liberals/Lib Dem historical by-election victories have been on the basis of spending the same as at General Elections. The key is getting bodies on the ground (which is free).
I also think UKPaul is talking nonsense. It is a vital part of democracy for politicians policy positions to be exposed. The attcks on Nichola Davies were legitimate, because they were about a potential conflict of interest. Questionning Bob Neil’s commitment to do the job is legitimate as he clearly has his snout in a number of troughs that he is unable to do the job as MP on full time basis (which is the basis on which the election is being fought).
If al parties simply staked out their policy positions then we would be doing democracy a disservice - no exposure of corruption (Aitken, Hamilton etc) and no ability to compare the qualities of the persons putting themselves forward.
If you think politics is unduly negative now - try the 19th century - things are far cleaner now.
I do accept however there is a divide between negative campaigning and nasty campaigning. Nasty campaigning is to attack people for who they are not what they’ve done. I could point to the differences in the way Labour treated Charles Anglin in Lambeth as an example of nasty campaigning - not about either his record or his policies. You might wish to compare that to how Chris Bryant MP was treated by his opponents.
108 Dan. Frankly the way Chris Bryant was treated was just pants !
108 and 109, How was he treated?
Ed Balls was president of the student body when I was an undergraduate. I also found him impressive though he was rather more left wing then…
110. IIRC Labour posted on their website a copy of the the local paper piece about him and his pics on gaydar.
There was also a brief comment with a sort of joke about it.
I didn’t think it was Gaydar though I’m sure he will set you straight if I am correct.
113. Jon, it was:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1335.html
96 - I don’t think it’s a straight forward as that though. To tak ethe example given, if your opponent (of any party) comes from the other end of the country, has never previously shown any interest in the area, and is simply looking for a seat in parliament, isn’t it reasonable that the voters should know that? Your opponent is hardly going to publicise the fact themselves. Of course, it’s not usually as clear cut as that, and you can certainly argue as to what is reasonable and what unreasonable in specific cases, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that a candidate should never mention anything about their opponents.
To use another example, our local MP in the mid 1990s was severely criticised in the investigations into the “cash for questions” affair. Are we really suggesting that both Labour and the Lib Dems were wrong to refer to this in their general election campaigns?
Had the Rhondda been a marginal or had their been a by-election then I suspect that opponents would have made an issue of the prospective MP posting pictures of himself on the internet in his y-fronts.
[83] Our Genial Host is playing the faux naïf - by-elections used to have the same expenses limits as general elections, and all the Parties ignored them and agents’ returns were works of speculative fiction.
Never argue with Andrea ! My apologies.
118. Jon, nah, no problem.
Maybe the media got it wrong at the time though. I didn’t check gaydar
116. Max, but he’s versatile!
I can picture the leaflets though:
Versatile MP in fashion outrage!
Sort of off thread but an interesting summary of the electoral commissions returns for 2005:
Labour:
2005 losses: £14.5m
Total net liabilities: £27.25m
Conservatives:
2005 losses: £15m
Total net liabilities: £18m
Lib Dems:
2005 losses: £207,000
Total net assets: £298,000
I would have thought that any reduction in by-election spending limits would be driven by poverty on behalf of both Labour and Conservatives rather than trying to stop the Lib Dems!
82 - Yes - it is difficult to simply describe something as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ - they are often flip sides of the same issue.
Is it positive or negative to be against cuts to the local NHS? On the one hand it is a negative attack on the party that is responsible for the cuts, on the other it will be seen as an overwhelmingly positive stance by the majority of local residents.
120 - Indeed - just the interest on Labour’s debt would pay for about 20 by-election campaigns!
Labour members must be delighted at the prospect of all the cheese and wine evenings and jumble sales they will have to organise to pay off that debt
122. How many money can they get with events like this?
http://www.hebdenbridge.co.uk/news/news05/55.html
123 - Had tea at Alice’s house once. Lovely lady!
122 > wine and cheese evenings
22 - It’s quite simple. All they need are a few wealthy supporters to loan them some money for a while.
Surprised no-one’s thought of that before.
I’ve had people say to me on the doorstep that they are voting for xxxxx (Lib Dem candidate) because, ’she seems a nice lady’ and they do get their leaflet delivered all the time.
At a very local level, it is this image that they are living on, backed up by regular Focus newsletters that suggest and imply all the good work they are doing. They will make sure that they offer a broad appeal to as many people as possible - even, in some cases, if national Lib Dem policy goes against the issues at hand.
BUT… come the election, all of sudden the well used and effective tactics come in to play. Hand written evelopes, Dear Neighbour letters, Straight choice between ‘Hard working all year round Lib Dems’ unlike the opposition, two horse race, too close to call, every vote counts, xxx can’t win here and the bar charts / quotes rubbishing the oppostion chosing whatever combination is required from whatever source…
Then after it’s all over, it’s back to the warm fuzzy messages until the next time…
There is a way to beat them though:-
Push them into a corner and draw them into a fight all year round. Under no circumstance do you allow them to purely roll out the standard three week campaign every election. Don’t let them settle at any point. Keep setting the agenda and make them react.
This requires someone or a local team who are willing to bust a gut to win - all year round. Unfortunatly this is the hardest part. Who will be prepared to put in two, three years graft for no guarantee result or reward to crack a Lib Dem stronghold?
So, the bottom line is that, personally, I have no problem with pointing out lies, mis-truth, dubious statements, lack of action on an issue, incompetence etc against any party, but especially against the Liberals as that’s my local battle. They have made a couple of mistakes locally that I can now hammer home again and again from now to May 2007.
You get them to make mistakes by working hard against them, otherwise they do and say what they want without any pressure to actually do anything.
I would expect nothing less in return, but try very, very hard not to give them anything to attack - which they will again and again if you offer it to them.
All of that balanced with positive action / ideas and policies from my side.
That isn’t negative campaigning, it’s politics.
Matt.
SSP soap opera episode 173:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5194588.stm
Allan Green, the SSP’s national secretary, tells the court that Sheridan confessed in a party meeting that he visited swingers clubs.
Everyone was shocked and no-one supported the libel action (well, they had a point!)
Why are the LDs such effective by-election / general election campaigners?
Part of the reason is the first past the post electoral system is so biased against them.
If the LDs could go into a General Election with a confidence that if they managed to get 20% of the votes then they would have 100+ MPs: would they have needed to become such effective campaigners?
Which is most important for the LDs: Campaigning skills or “policy”?
The bitter experience of General Elections with lots of votes but next to no seats must have impacted they way the LDs think.
It would be good for politics in this country if the LDs were rewarded (with MPs) for putting forward well thought out policies and ideas. Personally I much favour positive rather than negative campaigning.
However the reality is that winning seats is what counts – who can blame the LDs for realising that policy is of secondary importance to campaigning skills.
LDs seem to moan much less about the electoral system than they used to. They are adapting and learning how to win under the first past the post system.
This may be good news for the LDs but it’s not good news for politics in this country. The LDs are more and more seen as negative campaigners. The way politics is perceived is changing – respect for politicians and the political process is continuing to decline.
(I really really really don’t like the Tories, I don’t like Labour and I’m not that keen on the LDs either)
08 - Dan that was not the point at all, you have misread it completely. To attack policies is fine, to find corruption is fine. To attack someone because of where they live is not, to infer that their policies will do something they won’t is not.
Valerie is partly right in that this is about honesty and dishonesty but I would add to that by saying that personal attacks are also to be deplored, attack a policy and compare it with the positives of your own don’t denigrate an opponent and misrepresent their intent.
People in this political bubble don’t seem to be able to understand the effect that they are having, that they are part of the problem that democracy is now facing and, if they don’t address their own ways, then we are in for a very shaky time.
I think I know who talks nonsense and it’s pretty much party activists of all stripes.
Matt at 127. Great post, I agree with every word.
130 - take an example at random.
Eastbourne - 1990
LD David Belotti was very much “the local man” - OK, he was from down the road in Brighton.
Conservative - Richard Hickmett was MP for Scunthorpe but had lost his seat in 1987.
Is it fair game to use a line like “Who would you prefer, local man or the ex-MP for Scunthorpe?” This is fair enough in my book, but it is the limit of my tastes. It is a line that will be used against Tory A-listers parachuted in come the next election.
(As the LDs are now starting to parachute in people to seats already held, - like Clegg and Huhne - will other parties use the same tactics?)
83. Although LDs spend liberally in by-elections, the party is talented at campaigning on low budgets, unlike their more heavily indebted opponents. So maybe reducing the limits wouldn’t damage them as much as Mike implies. See this posting from a Lib Dem blogger today:
“The local Tories … thought they had us too when our accounts didn’t turn up on the Commission website. They are gobsmacked to find that we won control of MK Council and have clung on to effective power (even in NOC) with a yearly Local Party turnover of under £25,000 so don’t have to have our accounts on public access. They simply cannot get their heads around this level of frugality.”
http://politsmk.blogspot.com/2006/07/drunken-sailors-at-helm.html
Roger, after your posts of the last few days, what is it that prevents you becoming a LibDem? Your case is interesting, because you are one of the last Labour followers on PB and now you have joined the ranks of former Labour followers of PB. You strike me as a typical kind of Labour guy, and your move now could indicate a considerable loss of support if Blair’s “Ariel Sharon” impression goes on longer…
A few years ago in Befordshire we were fighting a council by election in some villages where we had absolutely no members or known supporters. We brought in a candidate from a few miles away and campaigned with the slogan - “Alan S has no financial or property interests in the ward making it sound as though there were dirty goings on with the Tory candidate.
It worked brilliantly and as I recall we came from zero to within 27 votes of victory squeezing Labour on the way.
135. That’s a classic example of dirty Libdem campaign!
One thing is saying that the opponent is not local or has too many jobs, another thing is suggesting that there were “dirty goings on with the Tory candidate” when there aren’t.
That’s exactly why I tend not to like the Libdems. They’re those subtle suggestion they like to do and they’re so proud of that irritate me.
130. SBS, you mean like Damien ‘the Alien’ dive-bombing Folkestone post-Drac? (Cue humour-devoid ranting Tory from South west London)
39 Nick P 50 years on the doorstep?!?! I trust you will be running a case in the European Courts against the Labour Party for child abuse/exploitation? Get Cherie on your side and put the old comrades club even more millions in hock to the rich luvvies and US crap-IT suppliers!
76. Roger, Yes Maggie B clearly had to sign up to the Condi-Jack Covenant of Newt Gingrich in order to be granted her new high perch - with probably a free caravaning holiday tour of the Negev thrown in. “These, children, are the GOOD terrorists… and these are the nasty ones with towels on their heads.”
81 Dan, Chesterfield was another example of a campaign which was there for the taking, but with totally the wrong candidate, creating a ‘glass ceiling’ for the campaign. Probably would have been lost back a-la-Leicester rather than the prolonged build-up to where they are now. Tony Benn would have become a full-time TV performer and we might have been spared Wotten Wossy!
136. That is something I indeed wouldn’t be proud of.
135 Mike Rennard.
Disgraceful !!
In the GE in the constituency where I live, there were some very nasty leaflets going around. I was not very involved, but it looked dirty. Of the three main parties, one candidate had lost a libel case to the neighbouring MP, one had 2 convictions for indecency, and one was not local and described as “obscure”. The material of all three parties was fairly depressingingly personal.
It is now a three way marginal - let’s hope it’s more issue driven next time. I would say that all three parties crossed the threshold of decency with their leaflets.
136/138 Andrea/Valerie. Oh come on ….. it was a wonderful wheeze, if only to see the opposition faces !!
At the top of this thread, what party is the “NOT WANTED: NICOLA DAVIES” leaflet from.
At I guess I would say BNP. But that would appear to be out of context with the article.