Browse > Home / Election, Labour, Liberal Democrats / Barnsley defects to Scotland

| Subcribe via RSS



Barnsley defects to Scotland

March 4th, 2011 Posted in Election, Labour, Liberal Democrats by

Congratulations to Labour’s Dan Jarvis, who has beaten the nationalists into second place, to be coronated the next Labour MP in Barnsley Central. The Liberal Democrats came sixth. 

Were this a small town in Scotland it would not be an entirely unusual result, albeit still bad for the Liberal Democrats.

 The low turnout (37% versus 57% at the general election) was a factor. The 2nd place at the general election was only 17%, some 6 votes higher than the Conservatives.

The headline though is what matters, with echos of the SDP’s 7th place performance in Bootle 1990. The result that finally persuaded David Owen to dissolve the party.

It is hard though to draw any meaningful conclusion from the result beyond a sense that the UK like the USA is polarising. The US split is sometimes characterised as ‘the United States of Canada’ versus ‘Jesusland’, ours as ‘AngloSaxonia’ versus ‘Southern Scandinavia’.

Multi-party Scotland for example has proven curiously resilient to plural outcomes over the last 30 years with Labour regularly out-performing their national vote share, and widely predicted to return as the largest party in May’s Scottish elections.

Even in 2010 Labour secured 42% of the Scottish vote (versus 29% overall) with a swing away from the SNP. This after presiding over a financial disaster on a scale akin to the Scottish banking crisis that precipitated the Act of Union in 1707.

In that context it’s hard to see what trends or political winds it would take for a centrist or centre-right party to win big in Scotland.

Could some parts of the north of England be going the same way?

The North East has 25 Labour MPs and 4 from coalition parties. It’s hard to see that changing much, even with voting reform.

The South East conversely has 75 Conservatives, 4 Liberal Democrats, 4 Labour and 1 Green.

These are regions as divided on politics as Texas and New Jersey.

Such division is a problem for the Liberal Democrats. It means a centre-ground squeeze if we remain coherent, and (at least) two parties if we return to protest-vote opportunism.

Results like Barnsley Central, numerically irrelevant in themselves, will encourage defections and add fuel to the narrative of a liberal split.

There is a further problem in what to do about it. Ending the coalition or ditching Nick Clegg might appease typically Labour protest votes, but not win them back, whilst simultaneously alienating liberal conservatives and independents.

Reversing the tuition fees reversal would deepen tensions in the party (many MPs would be made to look ridiculous) and do nothing to restore public trust. That damage has been done.

Does it mean the party should always sit outside Government until it can win a majority? Maybe electorally, but this is unlikely to improve the party’s credibility as a future government, or make the case for electoral reform.

The unhappy advice surely then is that Nick Clegg must stick to his guns, do more to flesh out what his centre-ground liberal alternative looks like, and weather more Barnsley Centrals on the road to 2015 in the hope events and opponents will provide the opportunities for revival.

Whether or not the party let him do that remains to be seen.

23 Responses to “Barnsley defects to Scotland”

  1. Tom Papworth Says:

    Olly Grender at the New Statesman website lists the times Labour lost their deposit:

    In 2005 in Cheadle Labour lost its deposit. In the Henley by-election Labour lost its deposit and came fifth, behind the Tories, LibDems, Green and the BNP. It goes back, in the 2000 Romsey by-election when Labour got 3.7 per cent of the vote and in Winchester in 1997 — Labour’s prime year — the candidate got 1.7 per cent of the vote. On both occasions, Labour lost its deposit.

    I suspect Winchester is the run-off by-election and so a bit unfair but he makes a point.

    “The unhappy advice surely then is that Nick Clegg must stick to his guns, do more to flesh out what his centre-ground liberal alternative looks like…”

    …and do more to make clear the difference we are making in government and the difference between us and the Tories. His Luton speech is exactly the sort of thing we need!

    On a less constructive note…

    AngloSaxonia’ versus ‘Southern Scandinavia’? I’m not even sure I know what ‘Southern Scandinavia’ is, unless it’s a lengthy euphemism for Denmark. Now if the alternative was Southern Sweden it would be massively preferable to what Labour has been offering: seasons not too extreme and hardly a hint of socialism!

    “coronated”? Okay, it’s a word, but a pretty ugly one!


  2. Neil Craig Says:

    Amazing how people don’t like being lied to isn’t it?

    I presume from your assessment that UKIP, being a south of England traditional liberal party, must have placed no higher than 7th in Barnsley since it certainly couldn’t outpoll you Pseudoliberal statists in a left wing area?


  3. Tom Papworth Says:

    Hahaha.

    “UKIP, being a … traditional liberal party”

    Good one Neil. Good to see you’ve not lost your sense of humour!


  4. Neil Craig Says:

    Tom you should find out what the traditional liberals believed in – free trade, individual freedom, free marketism and freedom for small nations as well as large. Hence liberalism is from the same root as liberty. All things UKIP strenuously support and the Pseudoliberals oppose.

    I note nobody disputes that if the assessment for the Pseudoliberal failure was true UKIP would have had to do far worse.


  5. Tom Papworth Says:

    I am well aware of what traditional liberals believe in. In particular, the unswearving belief in the free movement of labour.

    Indeed, “free trade, individual freedom, free marketism” are impossible without it. As long as UKIP is so vehemently anti-immigration they cannot claim to be liberal.


  6. Neil Craig Says:

    Perhaps Tom, you could point to the occasion when Gladstone said he wanted unlimited Somali, or indeed Sudanese, immigration to Britain?

    No. Thought not.


  7. Psi Says:

    @ Neil

    It was about the time he commented on the appropriate structures for allocation for slots at Heathrow airport.

    Mass african migration to the UK was not the most common topic in the 19th centuary.


  8. TW Says:

    “The unhappy advice surely then is that Nick Clegg must stick to his guns, do more to flesh out what his centre-ground liberal alternative looks like, and weather more Barnsley Centrals on the road to 2015 in the hope events and opponents will provide the opportunities for revival.

    Whether or not the party let him do that remains to be seen.”

    The advice is right. The problem is that the party is government (by which I do not mean the party in the House of Commons) has in the tuition fee debacle walked away from what much of the party in the country actually worked for.


  9. Neil Craig Says:

    “Mass african migration to the UK was not the most common topic in the 19th centuary”

    Precisely so anybody claiming that UKIP aren’t liberals on the basis that 19thC liberals supported it is either wholly and completely dishonest or going to make a public retraction immediately.

    Anybody want to bet on which?


  10. Tom Papworth Says:

    Neil,

    I didn’t say “C19th liberals”; I said “classical liberals.” The philosophy transcends time and free movement of labour is at the heart of it.

    Of course, mentioning “unlimited Somali, or indeed Sudanese, immigration” exposes the racial fear underpinning your argument.

    FWIW, the Somali’s make up 0.16% of UK residents at the moment, and they significantly outnumber the Sudanese. If you want to describe that in apocalyptic terms then go ahead. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously.


  11. Neil Craig Says:

    Then, I repeat, you will be able to name some liberal from the era when liberalism was formed who said they supported unlimited Somali or indeedc Sudanese immigration.

    Or else, being to some extent honest you will apologise.

    No? Still thought not.


  12. Psi Says:

    @ Neil

    So you want a specific reference to Sudan and Somalia?

    An explanation of free movement of people in clasical liberal thought is not sufficient?

    If you want people to take you seriously you will have to accept that not every liberal in history will have considered all future specific circumstances. I imagine there will also be no references to planning applications in Welwyn Garden City but that would not justify a claim that if it is not refered to 200 years ago a comment on their planning appraoch could not be considered “liberal” or “illiberal” depanding on how they treat the issue.


  13. Neil Craig Says:

    “If you want people to take you seriously you will have to accept that not every liberal in history will have considered all future specific circumstances”

    To repeat – Precisely. It was you who claimed that traditional liberals had always, one and all, supported exactly the sort of immigration of hundreds of thousands annually which we currently see. Of course they hadn’t, partly for precisely the reaon you have given.

    So perhaps, as a representative of a party which has, very specificly, supported war crimes, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, genocide, child sex slavery and the dissection of living human beings & stealing of their body organs, all to support the racial programme of Adolf Hitler you will now acknowledge that no member of your party can honestly call it “liberal” while UKIP, which opposes illegal war, is.
    Or do you deny that your party did indeed, as a matter of racial principle, participate in this in the “specific circumstances” of Kosovo.

    Could you even claim that the BNP, which is also opposed to criminal wars, is 1,000d of times more liberal and less supportive of fascism than your own?


  14. Psi Says:

    @ Neil

    Godwins Law – you loose


  15. Neil Craig Says:

    So not being a hypocritical supporter of war crimes, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, genocide, child sex slavery and the dissection of living human beings & stealing of their body organs, all to support the racial programme of Adolf Hitler but a non-hypocritical one you will have here denounced every LibDim leader, beeboid, Cameron etc who ever accused the BNP of fascism. Please provide links – I could use a laugh.

    No? Well imagine my surprise.

    In fact Godwin applies to clearly overblown accusations of Nazism. You clearly do not and cannot dispute that your party did indeed support that criminal war and those atrocities. Or that both UKIP and the BNP opposed them.

    And I note you cannot find a single traditional liberal who put forward the policy which you call your touchstone of UKIP’s liberalism. So being not wholly dishonest you will be apologoising.

    Sorry I forgot – you are wholly dishonest.


  16. Tom Papworth Says:

    “Could you even claim that the BNP, which is also opposed to criminal wars, is 1,000d of times more liberal and less supportive of fascism than your own?”

    It doesn’t take long for the supporters of UKIP to come out and defend their fellow travellers on the far right, does it.

    Keep cozying up to the BNP, Neil. They are, after all, on your wavelength.


  17. Neil Craig Says:

    Desparate Tom.
    I take no ethical lessons from racist, child raping, genocidal members of a party of Hitler supporting war criminals.

    Incidenttally Tom you don’t actually say what you disagree with about the BNP. Perhaps you would care to try without being denounced by Psi (assuming he isn’t a lying hypocrit 😉 )


  18. Andy Mayer Says:

    The tone of some of these contributions is becoming extreme, needlessly offensive, and unrelated to the topic of the article. I will have to moderate if it continues.

    The principle difference between liberals within UKIP and liberals within the the Liberal Democrats, factions in both parties, is nationalism.

    We tend to believe international structures and multi-lateralism can have democratic elements and legal force. UKIPpers tend to believe in bilateral arrangements, and an absolute right of national veto. UKIP are supporters of a Union created in 1707, we support both that and one started in 1957… etc…

    One can hold economically and socially liberal views in both contexts, the main disputes are about which are more consistent liberals in respect of political rights. They can point to LD support for smoking bans for example, we can point to their support for burka bans.

    Despite Europe it is also true that on single issues there are shared interests. Both parties are on the Yes side of the AV referendum.

    Comparisons to the BNP and other extremist groups are rarely helpful. All parties have been embarassed by former activists turning up on their books, and the party that gets most BNP-swtichers in respect of votes is Labour. UKIP and the Liberal Democrats are far more middle-class.


  19. Neil Craig Says:

    Well thats a more reasonable response.

    In practice the difference then comes down to UKIP being liberals who almost entirely oppose the EU and The LDs being liberals who almost entirely support it.

    That is a defencable position though I think it ignores the economic liberal position (which is officially “incompatible with party membership”) but is dominant in UKIP. It also ignores the LD position on destroying up to 80% of the economy on the back of the “catastrophic warming” scare (& earlier eco scares now proven false) which is clearly designed to scare people into accepting a more controlling state.


  20. Psi Says:

    @ Tom

    I have found something I disagree with you on.

    I don’t think it is fair to compare UKIP to the BNP as UKIP aren’t (as far as I’ve ever been able to identify) a racist party (not excluding the possibility individual members may hold racist views).

    They are religiously intolerant and believe in thought crimes (“burka ban” leading obviously to judgements of what people were thinking when wearing an item of clothing). However I am unaware of them ever making a judgement based upon race (though obviously they are willing to make judgements based upon other irrelevant factors).

    The authoritarian nature of some of their reactions and their bizarre belief that all of the world’s ills would be cured by the UK leaving the EU give everyone plenty of ammunition to pull them to pieces without the need to make comparisons with people who are even crazier.


  21. Tom Papworth Says:

    @Psi

    I never actually said that UKIP was a racist party, though I do wonder if their opposition to immigration extends to Australians and Canadians as well as to Somalis and Sudanese.

    I do think that the two parties share a nationalist rhetoric that runs counter to the universalism of liberalism, which was the souce of my “fellow travellers” comment. But I accept your point that they are not, at least explicitly, racist.


  22. Neil Craig Says:

    Can anybody produce any evidence of the BNP doing anything 1,000th as racist as your own party’s involvement in tracial genocide and worse?

    If not it is possible for any remotwely honest LD supporter to criticise the BNP as racist? I suggest the obvious answer is no.


  23. slip ring connector Says:

    good! write well from slip ring connector