Browse > Home / coalition, Liberal Democrats / Three truths from the ashes of Oldham

| Subcribe via RSS



Three truths from the ashes of Oldham

January 14th, 2011 Posted in coalition, Liberal Democrats by

1. If David Cameron and many members of the Conservative Cabinet had prevailed – by running an even lower grade Tory campaign, or not running one at all – the electors of Oldham East would now probably have a Liberal rather than Labour MP.

 
2. The purist Tory right believe they should fight hard, everywhere, all the time. This doesn’t seem to apply to Northern Ireland. Despite the fact that the Tories consider themselves to be a Unionist party, they choose to not allow voters in one part of the kingdom to put an X in the Tory box..

 
3. This by election shows the nonsense of the present electoral system. Honest, fair minded Tory voters in Oldham should have been given the right to vote for the Conservatives as their first choice and then to choose their 2nd choice candidate in the event that the Tory (which happened) got nowhere. It is, in many ways, because of FPTP that points 1 and 2 are problems

21 Responses to “Three truths from the ashes of Oldham”

  1. Cillian Says:

    Err, Angela, the most recent NI-wide election was the 2010 general election. The Tories stood in all NI seats at that election. Ergo you’re down to two “truths” there.


  2. Mark Littlewood Says:

    @ Cillian. Only a tiny bit, in fairness. The Tories have been weak at offering a ballot choice. I look forward to seeing the euro election candidate, assembly, local candidates etc. If I’m right (and I may not be), the Tory candidates were basically picking up what was left of the UUP. For decades the Conservative and Unionist Party have chosen not to make much of an effort (or give voters a Tory option) in Northern Ireland. Fair enough. That’s up to them. But don’t treat it as some fundamental breach of faith if they don’t make much of an effort in Oldham.


  3. Dilettante Says:

    As a liberal-minded Conservative and ardent unionist, I completely agree with points 1) and 2). I submitted a comment piece to ConHome the other day making exactly that point – if they don’t run it would it be suitable (with some language tweaks) to run it on Liberal Vision?


  4. Howard Says:

    Point 1 and points 2+3 are not really compatible. If you are right that there are Tories who will fight hard everywhere, then it follows that these folks would probably not transfer their votes to the Lib Dems under AV, or if the Tories had soft pedalled even more than they did. So in all probability Labour would have won anyway – don’t kid yourself, the party is a in a hole and still digging.

    In any case, do you not think that a Lib Dem MP won on Tory votes would be something of tainted victory?

    I’m an ex Lib Dem activist, and am astonished at this cosiness with the Cameron Tories. Ever heard of the concept of being hugged to death?


  5. Guido Fawkes Says:

    To be fair the Tory right wants to stand Conservatives in NI.


  6. Dilettante Says:

    Do you have sources for that, Guido? I’d dearly like to get in touch with them, Conservatives in NI is one of my main focuses.


  7. Remittance Man Says:

    1. Really? Who’s to say a formal alliance wouldn’t have alienated even more Tory voters? How many more LibDem voters would have abstained or voted Labour? The “coalition” vote was less than 900 ahead of Labour, it wouldn’t have taken much.

    2. Why shouldn’t members and supporters of a party expect that party to fight elections properly? LibDems didn’t join or vote for the Conservative Party and Conservatyives don’t expect them to do so. Why on earth should you think Conservatives should behave differently?

    3. Yeah. My “I dislike this bloke slightly less than that woman” vote really enhances democracy.


  8. Man in a Shed Says:

    Based on reports from the count it seems the Lib Dem candidate received a large tactical support from Tories, would could read between the lines.

    If true, this means the Lib Dem haemorrhaged votes to Labour and are only able to still look perfused with votes due to the massive transfer from smart Tory supporters, who can follow their leaders intent over his words.

    In many ways the Conservatives have done best here as the Lib Dems now know annihilation awaits in a general election held before the pay-off from today’s tough choices arrives, but in a message that they can publicly avoid acknowledging.

    You spin if you want to, but the truth’s not for turning.


  9. FTP Topcliff Says:

    There is a series of non-sequiteurs here, stitched together with wishful thinking.

    1. Without an explicit and public deal that Tories stand aside for LDs when they are ahead in a constituency and vice versa, it is unreasonable to expect the Tories (or the LDs) to take a dive in any by-election. What are the chances of the LD activist base pulling their punches in a future by-electiuon where the Cons are best placed? Within the margin of error of zero I imagine. You can’t expect the Tories to swallow what you won’t.

    2. The Ulster parallel is false. Every part of the UK has a politics which differs to a greater or lesser degree. The Tories have a natural majority in England and are lambasted by LDs and others – especially in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales – for being just ‘the party of England’. You can’t blame them therefore if they take themselves at your assessment and insist on making a showing on their home turf.

    3. Among the self-indulgent and faintly dishonourable static emanating from weak-stomached LDs about how much they don’t really like the Tories, it has been forgotten how much the Tories don’t like LDs. It is an error to assume Tories would plump for LDs second. Not only are there UKIP, Green and fascist alternatives, but many would refuse to be coralled by a twisted electoral system and not cast a second preference at all.

    This by-election demonstrates why the current electoral system is best. Labour had the most support and deserved to win the seat. Given they have always held it, any other outcome would have been extraordinary.

    I don’t support Labour but I do believe that they should win a seat when they have most votes in it. The LDs are a party rooted in no principle other that mutual advantage, and this post makes clear it is the belief that there would be tactical benfits for themselves that motivates their support for PR.

    The great strength of the current electoral system which we share with almost the whole of the English speaking world is that it forces the creation broad parties that are enduring coalitions themselves – and the ELECTORATE then chooses between them. That is better than having manifesto-breaking deals done by parties to create coalitions after the election. The coalition experience has evidently been so painful for LDs that I am surprised they are not coming around to this realisation themselves. Perhaps they have spent the last 80 years fantasising that there would be a coalition partner exacty ike themselves with which no grown-up compromises would be necessary?

    Incidentally, if we did have PR it is often posited that the Tory Party would split. But do the strains revealed by being in Government not show that the LDs would also split – the lefties going off to Labour and the Orange bookers accreting to a middle-class Cameroony centre party, economically sane but with metropolitan prejudices and with no working class purchase?


  10. Psi Says:

    @ FTP Topcliff

    If the Lib Dems Split under a PR system why would you assume that the less free market side would join labour and the freemarket side join the Torys?

    If they were to split under this system it is likley that they would remain independent in a sort of Lib/SDP break. The tories may break in to a moderate / hard line split but I imagine that Labour would be held together by the trade union money.


  11. Angela Harbutt Says:

    @FTP Topcliff

    Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed piece.. in reply (and just to remind you these are MY views not necessarily shared by all of LV)..

    1.Personally I would expect Lib Dems to do likewise (standing by for Tories where they have a better chance of winning) and suggest that central funding and focus could encourage this approach… ie put your election funds and top brass focus on those seats where the coaltion can beat the socialists not duff up/squabble with coaliation partners. Besides anything else it would be a sensible allocation of resource (ie cash).

    2. I can and do blame the Tory party for being a tad idiotic at this early by election. I suspect Mr Cameron and the more far sighted in the Tory party would have preferred not to run and this early in the coalition could have taken the stance that the brave Lib Dem candidate deserved the best chance of winning – given the circs. If they had we would almost certainly have a coalition victory this morning – and kept Labour on the back foot. local tribalism is all well and good but we are fighting for something more important right now.

    3a. My experience is entirely different to yours. I am meeting Liberals and Tories all the time who are expressing surprise and delight at how much in common they have with their partners, and how good working relations really are..and that is at council level as well as westminster. Of course if you just read the small minority of screaming bloggers who are counting the days when they can return to the wilderness then you might have a different impression.

    3b. I simply cant agreee that Labour had the most support and deserved to win. The majority of voters got precisely the opposite of what they wanted. Under AV- the majority – which support the current coalition necessary actions – could have expressed their loyalty to their particular passions and still got the coalition they wanted.Party distinction with desired result.

    3c. Yes I think we all agree that under PR the Lib Dems could quite possibly split – but I suspect the liberal core would remain a separate entity – and quite possibly attract a few liberal Tories and indeed a few of those liberal UKIPers for a true liberal party. (I also rather suspect the Labour party would split too btw).


  12. Lotus 51 Says:

    Angela
    ref your point no.3

    You mean they could have chosen UKIP as their second preference or perhaps UKIP first and Cons 2nd. I doubt the LDs would get much help from Conservatives under AV. The electorate is far more euroscpetic than The Village.

    As a classical liberal and staunch advocate of representative democracy I would rank the LDs pretty low on my list as I don’t find their policies either liberal or democratic…..Liberal Vision excepted of course.


  13. Dilettante Says:

    Although to be fair Lotus, polling shows the British public also care about Europe a lot less than the activist Tory right.


  14. Lotus 51 Says:

    Dilletante,
    Indeed; but those polls were before the UK was strongarmed into lending money to the PIGS to alleviate their sovereign debt crisis and postpone the collapse of the Euro – a crisis not of our making and one that was entirely warned of.

    So far it’s just been the Greeks & the Irish, but 2011 is going to be a momentous year, especially for Portugal and Spain, possibly Italy and Belgium. Spain could be the bale of straw that broke the camel’s back.

    Come the next general election either the Euro will have collapsed or it will have dug deep into the pockets of other member states.

    This is not going to be pretty. 2008 might seem like a tame year in comparison to 2011.

    Paul Krugman pretty much sums it up…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/magazine/16Europe-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hp


  15. Steve Travis Says:

    It would take a while, but PR would create a fairly significant set of realignments.

    The current groupings are very tribal and forced on us by FPTP. PR would I think gove us a little England right, a Liberal Party, a Social Democratic Party and a Socialist Party (broadly speaking).


  16. Dilettante Says:

    Where to the pro-Union right sit in that analysis, Steve?


  17. Matt Says:

    This proves that some people will vote Labour no matter who the candidate is, no matter what Labour has done to them or the constituency.

    These Labour voters are like this: “What’s that, Squire? You have taken my wife and had carnal knowledge of her? Why, bless your soul! You’d best take my daughter, too! And as you are at it, why not take me, and all?”


  18. Steve Travis Says:

    Dilletante, good point. I guess I tend to conflate the two, perhaps eroneously. Although arent the LE and Unionist tendencies very similar?


  19. Dilettante Says:

    Not really, Steve. The LE right is English nationalist, dislikes imbalances between the Home Nations and would quite like a State of England under permanent Tory rule. The pro-Union right doesn’t countenance the breakup of the UK. As far as the UK is concerned they’re almost ideological opposites.


  20. Charles Says:

    Unless the Lib Dem candidate was a liberal, and not a social democrat, who was an avid supporter of an EU Referendum withdrawing a conservative candidate would only split the vote of those Tories who would still turn out equally between UKIP and the Lib Dems. So Labour would still have one in Oldham.

    In Northern Ireland the Conservatives normally don’t stand candidates against other unionists parties because it splits the right wing vote, but thats not the case when comparing Tories to LibDems.


  21. Dilettante Says:

    We’ve stood candidates in NI intermittently since 1992, so I’m not sure your ‘not splitting the right vote’ analysis is sound.

    Have you any evidence for your assertion that the Tory vote would split evenly between the coalition and UKIP? ConHome polling suggests a majority would endorse a coalition candidate.