The wrong battle?

The resignation of David Davis is quite surprising, and questions are asked in certain quarters of the media if this will have an adverse effect on his career or on the party. But what baffles me is why stand for re-election on this issue. A Sunday Telegraph poll showed 65% of people in favour of the extension of detention without trial; so any referendum on the issue would probably be won by Gordon Brown. As the Liberal Democrats have already declared they will not contest the by-election then it is unthinkable for him to lose the seat, unless Conservative voters simply do not turn out. Also forcing a by-election, and the costs incurred, may not be good PR anyway. There is the personal principle issue, but could he not do and say more from the floor of the house and via the media without stepping down? So the logical reason is to keep the issue, and Davis's objections in the media spotlight. Yet, the House of Lords have already promised to give the bill a 'pretty rough ride' so it will be on the news anyway. So is David Davis fighting the wrong battle here, sure a victory could be sold as a mini-referendum on the issue but the argument would be flawed as that would not be the question asked (particularly if no-one else stands); help me out with this one!!!

The real winner?

By-elections are usually fairly well hyped, by the parties as endorsements and by the media as indicative of trends. The two recent UK by-elections were largely unsurprising in their results but worthy of some comment.

The first point to make is that the votes in actual numbers for virtually all the parties fell, as did the turnout, as compared to the 2005 General Election. In percentage terms the Liberal Democrats could claim some comfort, but their votes did not increase substantially; thus the question is do they have around 4,000 loyal supporters that will always turn out and vote or did they gain a raft of new voters? The Conservatives similarly lost out, but not badly, but equally it is a question whether they have a hard core of voters that turnout come rain or shine or if Cameron, or Robb and Lit the candidates gained new supporters.

Labour seriously lost out. But is this a feature of vote switching or the low turnout? As both are deemed safe Labour seats there must be a sense of 'low self-efficacy' or powerlessness when voting. Equally why bother turning out to vote if the result is predictable. In Sedgefield there is also the non-Blair effect. Whether he is nationally hated or not, the media could always find people in Sedgefield that would speak positively about him; his successor could not offer the same prominence.

And there are worrying features. In Sedgefield the British National Party came a respectable fourth with 2,492 votes, 9% of the turnout.

But can these offer any indications in reality. The answer is probably not. If turnout increases for a General Election then normal service in these seats will probably resume. Safe seats will show some variations, but nothing that will effect the overall result. If we have a marginal by-election that may be a little more indicative, but still by-elections are a strange and unrepresentative beast that are given a lot of attention by parties and the media but fail to attract the interest of voters: such is the strange system we try to make sense of.

Happy holidays!!!

Dirty Politics

There are two by-elections to be resolved this week, Ealing and Southall following the death of Piara Khabra, and Sedgefield due to the resignation of Tony Blair. Both, it appears are becoming increasingly dirty affairs where the ideals of democracy and representation seem far from the minds of the candidates.

Ealing and Southall has seen councillors defecting from Labour to the Conservatives on the grounds of not being selected to be candidate; this indicates little ideological attachment to a party but rather a desire for power independent of the party. The Conservative candidate Tony Lit is not standing as a party candidate bunt under the moniker of 'Cameron's Conservatives', strange in itself. But over the weekend it was revealed that, representing Radio Sunrise, he attended a Blair fundraiser and there is an embarrassing photo (below) to prove it. Local Labour supporters have made great capital of the fact and so branded all the Conservatives turncoats. One can only wonder what the local voters are thinking about those people who seek to offer them representation.

Sedgefield is not much better. The Liberal Democrats decided to launch their campaign on Trimdon Green opposite the Labour office, not provocative at all. Labour supporters turned up to spoil the event, chaos ensues, and all is filmed and posted to Youtube [see below]. This looks like a cross between a home movie and a party election broadcast that puts both parties in a fairly bad light. The Liberal Democrats reportedly tried to corner the Labour candidate with camera again to produce a sequel but Labour were wiser on this occasion and avoided taking the bait.

The only positive campaign seems to be that of Graham Robb. He has been trying to engage local voters but the name Conservative appears to be sufficient to turn them away from him. But the positive tone of his blog from his MySpace page is actually quite a refreshing oasis in a desert of dirty politics. Given comments like "Labour have held this area for years and they have taken the voters for granted and done nothing at all." made publicly by local voters on the service received under Blair, and the disgust expressed by those commenting on Youtube, Robb could be expected to do well. But it seems unlikely, his eight friends on MySpace, none of whom are potential voters, indicates a lack of momentum and interest. Predictions are pitiful turnouts and Labour wins; a real triumph of democracy.

And this is perhaps the main loser here. When politics is carried out in this way how can trust and engagement be built? If the parties were squabbling about who would do the best job for the people of the area it would be understandable and perhaps would make voters think about their choice. When Labour pretend to be Newcastle fans when breaking up the Liberal Democrat launch, and attack the candidate only on the basis of him being from Newcastle and so not local to the Sedgefield constituency boundary, it suggests pretty weak politics. Equally when candidates appear to drift between parties, seeking the power and influence that comes with the title MP, it puts politics in a bad light and reinforces negative connotations. Thus politics becomes soap opera and voters become an audience, it may have always been this way but in an age when anything can be broadcast to everyone in seconds such behaviour does seem inappropriate and demonstrating little voter efficacy.