The whisperings of the Liberal Democrats falling into 3rd place in Oldham East (& somewhere else) came to nothing but so, equally, did the whisperings of another Dunfermline West shock victory. Second place before and second place now, any suggestions of an electoral crisis, (whispered or otherwise) should surely fall on deaf ears, no?
The results of the by-election were:
Jan 2011
Labour – 14,718
Lib Dems – 11,160
Conservatives – 4,481
Turnout – 48%
GE 2010
Labour – 14,186
Lib Dems – 14,083
Conservatives – 11,773
Turnout – 61%
Beaten by 3,558 votes in a seat that they lost by only 103 votes before entering into Government is not great, particularly when that 3,558 would have been larger if it had not been for tactical Tory top-up votes. Indeed, the above results could be painted as a disaster for Cameron but it’s pretty clear that it was the Coalition vs Labour in this contest and Labour won through.
However, 11,160 saw enough in Nick Clegg’s party to vote for it and Labour did have one huge advantage in this by-election – they no longer have Gordon Brown at the helm.
So, fun as it may be to entertain, I’m not buying into this notion that the Liberal Democrats are all but finished as a force in UK politics.
There is still a sizeable demographic that don’t wish to see themselves as Tories but still feel underwhelmed and/or sold out by Labour either over Iraq, or just generally through the wasted opportunity that the last 13 years patently was. There is the Green party for this group but, in the by-election, the Greens picked up only 503 votes, a third of BNP’s and a quarter of UKIP’s. I’m not sure where that leaves the GPEW strategy of picking off Lib Dem support, or the Scottish Green Party’s for that matter. North of the border there is of course the SNP that non-Tories and non-Labour can vote for but the issue of independence remains sufficiently polarising that voting for the Nats remains not an option for many.
Many are predicting a disaster for the Scottish Liberal Democrats in May and senior members of the party admit it will be “difficult†but, with clear evidence that Tories are willing to tactically vote for Lib Dems, some potential gains suddenly come into play – Aberdeen Central, Argyll & Bute, Edinburgh Central, Edinburgh Northern & Leith, Ettrick Roxburgh & Berwickshire, Inverness & Nairn and Midlothian South. Not to mention holding the existing seats with Conservative support making up for the loss of distinctly left-wing Lib Dem voters.
Many will bridle at the thought of the Lib Dems getting away with selling out without any electoral redress. That’s not to say things won’t be difficult and that Nick Clegg won’t remain as a political bogeyman.
First of all, is Clegg so bad? Probably not but he has cashed his political capital in early to bring his party into Government for the first time since 19 0 cake.
However, no MP has crossed the floor, no big-name blog has hung-up the keyboard and no Cabinet Minister is going anywhere anytime soon. They are “glued to their seats until 2015†as Chris Huhne put it. The Lib Dems will be on the ropes for the next four years, and they can expect further by-election defeats during this time, but no governing party has won a by-election since the 1980s and who has more momentum, the boxer everyone’s talking about that is coming off the ropes swinging or the lesser-known boxer that has a standing start?
Furthermore, the Lib Dems used to complain that they didn’t get any press between elections. That can hardly be cited as a problem now.
Clegg-mania may yet rise again but if it doesn’t (and it probably won’t), a clean skin like Tim Farron can take over the leadership of the party before 2015 and benefit from the positives of his party’s record in power while distancing himself personally from the more unpopular elements. Some will not be convinced that the Lib Dems can roll over a new leaf so quickly and easily but just look at Oldham East & Saddleworth or Springburn East by-elections? Contests caused by expenses greed from Labour MPs resulting in increased majorities for the incumbent party. Does anyone really think Labour won’t boost its margin over the Lib Dems in Barnsley Central once Eric Illsley has resigned?
The lesson is, remove the tarnished personalities and the brand will live on largely unblemished. And the Liberal Democrats still have a strong brand to sell, proponents of AV or PR would be foolish to suggest otherwise unless they really want to move towards the ding-dong of two party politics and the polarisation of society that has left the US in such a parlous state.
Looking at the by-election result again, focussing on how the Lib Dems have split the two big guns of Labour and Conservative and now stepping back into the 1980s, this constituency was split into two – Tory-held Littleborough & Saddleworth and Labour-held Oldham Central.
In a country where support for the top two parties at elections dropped from 81% to 67% in only a couple of decades, perhaps we should remember that the Lib Dems have a lot to be proud of and a lot that we should be thankful for.
#1 by Douglas McLellan on January 14, 2011 - 10:00 am
Selling out? Thats harsh. Every party, on coming to power, finds that it has to make compromises.
I think your analysis of where some Tory vote might go in Scotland is interesting. There is a gap in the political market for a party that is in the centre economically but is also socially liberal and the Lib Dems could move to pick that up.
#2 by Jeff on January 14, 2011 - 10:12 am
I don’t think “selling out” is a harsh choice of words at all, particularly on the tuition fees. I also don’t think it should necessarily carry all of the negative connotations that typically go along with it though.
The disconnect between what a voter expects an MP to do when they cast a ballot for them and what an MP thinks he/she can do once they are elected (and no longer beholden to their constituents) is a huge concern. You say the Lib Dems had to compromise but I would argue that they had a duty to their voters to argue for and seek to implement their manifesto. If that meant precluding them from holding office then so be it. The manifesto was their mandate.
There is no defence the Lib Dems can make that they haven’t pulled that disconnect as wide as it has ever been with some of their decisions but, if they pull it off, they’ll not only get away with it but perhaps even be handsomely rewarded.
And yes, the possibility of a Tory/Lib Dem link-up in Scotland is interesting and I was surprised at how many constituencies that could bring into play for the Lib Dems. However, Goldie and Scott are not as chummy as Cameron and Clegg so perhaps it is an electoral consideration that only applies at a UK level.
#3 by Douglas McLellan on January 14, 2011 - 10:55 am
In current level of political discourse in many places, selling out is akin to murdering all the first born of the nation. There seem to be many people who want to skin Lib Dem MPs alive.
The Lib Dems had a position and may have been able to implement that had they won. But they didnt. So the Coalition Agreement allowed them to abstain on any vote which all backbenchers (apart from Charles Kennedy who abstained on the agreement itself) should have done. Now, the question then is should the Lib Dems have not gone into Coalition because compromises had to be made? If yes, the Tories would have formed a minority government and struggled to get a lot of things done resulting in stalemate and another election. Or gone into an epically wide and unstable Coalition with other parties which probably, eventually, would fail so again with an election being called?
I class none of that as selling out in any way.
I really dont think that is what a ‘MP thinks he/she can do’ is the problem. It is what a MP *finds* he/she can do. Along with the unrealistic expectations the electorate have. For example, people want local accountability and decision making in public services yet also complain about the postcode lottery in services. And thats just a simple example.
I dont know if a link up is really necessary/applicable. It depends on the manifestos. If the Lib Dems can offer something economically central (which can be seen in the light of how the Lib Dems in London are positioned) then those people who who held their nose whilst voting for a party that has people like Nadine Dorries or even Murdo Fraser in it can have a more socially liberal party to vote for.
#4 by Jeff on January 14, 2011 - 11:07 am
“In current level of political discourse in many places, selling out is akin to murdering all the first born of the nation.”
Well, this is not one of those place. Selling out is selling out and murdering babies is murdering babies. I’m pretty sure all at Better Nation would like to keep the two separate.
I agree the Lib Dems made the least worst choice in joining the coalition and I understand that compromises have to be made but they still sold out. The reason they sold out is because they made promises that they manifestly couldn’t keep and even knew themsleves at the time they couldn’t keep them if a hung Parliament was the result.
That, to me, is selling out but, as I say, it isn’t the end of the world.
On your other point, a formal link-up would be a disaster and I think both parties know that. However, an unofficial bond could grow organically between voters of the two parties where tactical voting in both directions can benefit both parties. Whether that will occur significantly moreso than it does already remains to be seen really.
Alternatively, as you put it, if the Lib Dems can become ‘the more palatable Tories’ in Scotland, then it will be Annabel Goldie and not Tavish Scott who has a “difficult” election on their hands. The Lib Dems certainly have a head start with many more constituencies already held.
#5 by Alec Macph on January 14, 2011 - 3:31 pm
Yes, Douglas, after one or two – maybe more – *Parliamentary* *terms* in which the Parties in question realize they cannot keep to the letter of their pre-election promises.
What is not expected is for as many *days* of running around with their knickers around their ankles looking for the best deal, especially as a campaign of “no more lies” becomes “okay, one or two” in which the principal one (tutition fees) is jetisoned within weeks (and, considering that Laws’ book states that he and Clegg jolly well knew that they wouldn’t be able to square no-fees with their Orange Book views, it was a lie).
#6 by aonghas on January 15, 2011 - 12:44 pm
Always with the ‘slut’ analogy – so classy.
#7 by Alec Macph on January 15, 2011 - 1:21 pm
Perhaps you assume that anyone who questions ‘sexual’ morality cannot distinguished between a sexually liberated woman and the image I described.
Hang on, I’ll dig-up pieces which suggest Blair is smooching with GWB. What was it Baldwin said when grandparents were twinkles in their daddies’ eyes?
#8 by aonghas on January 15, 2011 - 2:10 pm
I think it’s telling that supposedly socially liberal people so often use female sexual promiscuity (or portray male party leaders as gay as if it were an insult) as a negative analogy when discussing negotiations between political parties. I think it’s childish and not a little telling of one’s true attitudes, even when the perpetrator clumsily tacks on some right-on stuff after the fact, like you just did there.
What gets me is that it’s often people who were all in favour of PR who have been taking this infantile line. What do they expect to happen when parties need to form coalitions? OK, I can understand it a little – a lot of people just thought that there’d be an automatic LibDem/Labour coalition in perpetuity, with LibDem policies mirroring Labour’s. I suppose that’s the LibDems=NIMNLabour world-view that has been shattered by events.
#9 by Alec Macph on January 15, 2011 - 2:42 pm
Who’s talking about sexual promiscuity? I’m alluding to sexual favours just as I would to nepotism and corruptions. Furthermore, you have nothing to go on when accusing me of taking a more sympathetic line to sex-mad men.
Well, it’s a good job that I wasn’t doing that. You’re not trying to smear me, are you?
To pursue discussion in a rational and studious manner, with weeks or even months of discussion and negotiation (Belgium still is waiting after 200 days)… not four days of running around with their knickers around their ankles looking for the best deal.
#10 by James on January 15, 2011 - 5:21 pm
You’ve got 28 days to elect a First Minister at Holyrood before the Scotland Act requires another election. Pretty sure that should be enough time.
#11 by Alec Macph on January 15, 2011 - 6:19 pm
Although, Holyrood is a regional legislature without the pressing need to coordinate a foreign policy (much as the Salsa Celtica exoticists of the SNP may want one) or defence policy (much as the SNP may selectively want one) or economic/financial control (hmmm, could be a good idea).
#12 by aonghas on January 14, 2011 - 10:44 am
I think that at the GE, the Lib Dems did accrue a big chunk of votes from a demographic for whom the idea of ‘selling out’ is really important. These are the Not In My Name style left-wingers (NIMNies? Let’s use that term from now on) who could not stomach voting for Labour at the time, as it would be too painful to their self-image. These are undoubtedly no longer Lib Dem voters – now that Labour are no longer in power, supporting them doesn’t impact negatively on these voters’ personal brand. (ie, their friends are less likely to berate them for supporting war criminals etc etc etc).
Nick Cohen wrote recently how Nick Clegg has suffered an accelerated Bliarification – as if he’d composted down from hero to villain in 10 months instead of 10 years. I thought that was quite nice.
#13 by Gaz on January 14, 2011 - 11:04 am
It always dangerous to extrapolate by-election results and the circumstances make it all the more dangerous on this occasion.
I am personally surprised that Labour did not win this by a country mile. The turnout certainly gave them that opportunity.
It looks to me like a lot of the Tory vote just didn’t bother, knowing that Cameron had deferred to his LibDem chums but not able to bring themselves to vote tactically.
I wonder just what impact sympathy for the LibDem candidate who was ‘cheated’ out of winning in May had in shoring up the LibDem vote?
Even more unknowns than usual so there is a real danger that the wrong conclusions will be drawn from reading the runes.
#14 by Daniel on January 14, 2011 - 11:15 am
It would be a real shock to me if Conservatives voted for Lib Dems en masse in the Scottish Elections, perhaps enough will to steady their vote but I can’t see it being enough to win seats like Aberdeen Central even if they’re notionally within a few hundred votes. I’m confused at why you mention Ettrick, Rox and Berwickshire the Tories won it from the LDs in 2007 and there is no love lost between Lamont and Robson!
#15 by Jeff on January 14, 2011 - 11:30 am
Fair points (especially the Ettrick, Rox & Ber which can be scrapped from the list given it’s Tory-held!)
I guess it’s important to differentiate between voters who may otherwise vote Conservative and Conservatives. The former is more susceptible to change due to being more fairweather while the latter is more dedicated to the party and a Lib Dem vote would be a conscious decision to aid their party through a tactical vote.
There must be many constituencies where Conservative voters know their preferred candidate won’t win but have not really differentiated between the SNP, Lab, LD candidates enough to vote tactically for any of them. If that changes for the LD benefit then that voting ‘en masse’ could happen.
It’d be worth seeing how many 1st vote Lib Dem and 2nd vote Conservative voters there were in past Scottish elections and, crucially, where.
#16 by Douglas McLellan on January 14, 2011 - 11:32 am
So a party, including its members, drafts a manifesto of what it wants to do in government but is selling out because it might not be able to deliver it in a coalition? Do we need two manifestos presented to the electorate by every party – the one where a majority of seats is one and one where there is a coalition?
I honestly do believe that a Lib Dem majority (however unlikely) would have resulted in a different tuition fee policy once in power. But since that didnt happen, we haven’t sold out.
#17 by Jeff on January 14, 2011 - 11:37 am
If a candidate signs a pledge not to increase fees and then votes to triple them once they are safely an MP, is that not selling out?
Where is the mandate from the public for Lib Dem MPs to implement some of the policies they are pushing?
It all comes back to this disconnect between what a voter expects and what an MP thinks they can get away with.
#18 by Douglas McLellan on January 14, 2011 - 12:18 pm
The Tuition Fee vote was, in of itself, not selling out.
The only way the Lib Dems could be accused of selling out is if it assumed that they stated they would vote against tuition fee rises and then did so to get some kind of benefit. What benefit did they get from voting in higher fees?
#19 by Jeff on January 14, 2011 - 12:56 pm
“What benefit did they get from voting in higher fees?”
Ministerial salaries
#20 by Douglas McLellan on January 14, 2011 - 2:11 pm
So Lib Dem policies being enacted are not seen as a benefit? Whilst an important policy, the tuition fees policy was not the only policy of the Lib Dems. I am happy that the lowest paid are having their incomes taken out of the income tax system. If that policy had not been enacted would I feel that the Lib Dems had sold out. No I wouldnt but some low earners might be aggrieved.
And the ministerial salaries (cheap shot btw) were in place before the details of the Browne review.
It can be argued that single issue voters (anti-tuition fee voters) can justly feel betrayed by the decision to vote fees higher but I still cant see how the Lib Dems have sold out.
#21 by Jeff on January 14, 2011 - 3:35 pm
I’m not entirely sure who it is you are trying to convince Douglas, me or yourself.
Stepping back a bit (it’s clear we’ll have to agree to disagree on how aplicable “selling out” is), I find it interesting how tetchy you got at a single phrase in a post that was largely and quite generously positive towards the Lib Dems and their future prospects. It seems telling that one would react in such a way when someone isn’t even having a go.
Also, not sure how pointing out the Lib Dems being in Cabinet was a cheap shot. That is clearly the benefit you were asking me to provide an answer with…
#22 by Douglas McLellan on January 15, 2011 - 2:12 pm
It may be a difference of opinion on the term sell out.
I know you weren’t having a go in the article which is why the throwaway line about selling out caught my attention.
And I re-joined the Lib Dems on the day the Coalition agreement was signed. Although disappointed in the Tution Fees decision (I have been advocating a Graduate Tax since the Dearing Review) I do not need convinced about the rightness of the coalition and what it is doing.
And we’ll have to disagree on the cheap shot as well.
#23 by cynicalHighlander on January 14, 2011 - 10:40 pm
Lib Dems U-turn as business backs SNP supermarket tax
Lib Dems have the difficulty in knowing which way the wind is blowing before they know which way to turn. They lost their way a long time ago and it appears they will say/do anything to get noticed rather than having basic principals. Trident, Nuclear power, tuition fees the list goes on.
#24 by Indy on January 14, 2011 - 12:33 pm
I think you are stretching it a bit.
There is a difference between not being able to implement manifesto commitments and doing the opposite of what you promised.
The SNP for example is regularly accused by the Lib dems of breaking manifesto promises. But while the SNP has not been able to deliver all its commitments it has never done the exact opposite of what it promised, which is what the Lib Dems did over tuition fees.
#25 by mike cobley on January 14, 2011 - 1:05 pm
Hi Jeff – I think we have a lot less to be comfortable about than you think. If you look inside the numbers (this is an interesting guide – (http://www2.politicalbetting.com) – you can see that our voting numbers halved since last May, and if it hadnt been for Tories voting tactically we would have come third. I`m afraid this is a harbinger of disaster.
#26 by CassiusClaymore on January 14, 2011 - 9:15 pm
Yes. If you like the coalition, vote Conservative. If you don’t vote Labour.
But why vote Liberal? They’re finished.
CC
#27 by Douglas McLellan on January 15, 2011 - 2:15 pm
There are still aspects to the Conservatives that some people find distasteful or worrying from a social perspective even if they are in agreement with them economically.
Also, the Tories in Scotland dont get Scotland basically. Saying no to devolution gave (and still gives) the impression that even Scottish Tories are not in favour of Scotland.
#28 by Bourgeois on January 14, 2011 - 9:31 pm
If this was indeed a fight between Labour and the Coalition, then clearly the Coalition won – the latter got more votes combined than Labour. Are you intentionally trying to mislead or are you just inept?
#29 by James on January 14, 2011 - 10:18 pm
I’m as much in favour of PR as the next sensible person, but it’s hard to see this as a Coalition win. Adding their votes together isn’t what would even happen with AV.
#30 by Jeff on January 15, 2011 - 12:19 am
Wow, that was a bit unnecessarily sour.
If the aim of the game is for a party to get a politician into Westminster then you could hardly say that Labour lost could you?
By default therefore, Labour won, despite clear Coalition collusion.
#31 by Alec Macph on January 15, 2011 - 12:36 am
Two against one? Hardly a balanced fight.
Yet, Labour still won.
#32 by Erchie on January 14, 2011 - 10:36 pm
The LibDems are treacherous sell outs. I wasn’t surprised at the what they did after the election, abandoning all meaningful pretence at sticking to their principle because I had seen them do it up here.
From the point where Jim Wallace tried to sell going back on his pledge to students as actually sticking to it that became clear.
The treachery goes on. The party of Home Rule and the right to self-determination opposes that now as bitterly as any Conservative and Unionist, oh wait, that’s only for Scotland.
The AV system is less proportional than FPP, but that is OK for Nick Clegg, outed Tory.
Vince Cable? Don’t make me laugh
Robert Brown, to think I voted for him when he was a Councillor, more fool me.
Charles Kennedy aside, I’m racking my brains trying to think of a principled LibDem when they have a sniff of a chance of power
#33 by Alec Macph on January 15, 2011 - 12:34 am
What power did he ever have wafted under his nose? Even when he has the internal Party power of leadership, he was piss-poor (pardon the pun).
Paddy Ashdown was quite good when he wasn’t acting as a LibDem.
#34 by Chris on January 16, 2011 - 11:42 am
And of course the political shifts between parties are not on a neat left-centre-right axis. On issues like Europe and Crime Tory policies are closer to Labour’s than the Lib Dem’s.