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.

Dirty Linen!

Tom Watson, Labour whip and Labour’s campaign director in Southall, has said: “Southall is the spiritual home of British Sikhism and they are Labour. For them to go to the Tories would be like going to a South Yorkshire coal mining areas in the 1980s and think they are going to vote for Mrs Thatcher.” Yet it seems he has not spoken to the local party. Southall Labour councillor who recently defect to the Conservatives Gurcharan Singh, who resigned on the basis that he had been refused a place on final candidate shortlist has reprotedly told The Times: “I don’t think the Labour Party is ready yet to have a turban-wearing Sikh as an MP.” This may be sour grapes, Mr Singh may be accused of playing the race card, or it may be true. Contributions on Labourhome tell an interesting story.

Swatantra comments: "the Singh's are acting like prima donnas. The white community must be laughing up their sleeves. Yet gain the Asian community has split along communal lines, and shown itself not fit to run a whelk stall. And its not the first time we've had this kind of behaviour from the Sikhs. Somebody tell me, why do we bother plugging away at community cohesion? Its the politics of the sub-continent on the streets of Southall." Very politically correct!

Without being drawn in to the comments on the situation in Ealing and Southall (I do like this post though) what it does show is that the Internet facilitates the off the cuff remark and perhaps ill-chosen comment to be instantly published in the most public of formats. If this was ConservativeHome there may well have been screams of racism (as Dizzy points out), at the very least it increases the hostility between factions. Whatever the foundation for the disaffection and subsequent defections, and however long they have been brewing, the Internet allows the back biting to be done in public and this gives a bad impression of both the party and all individuals involved.

Thus we see the risks of the open forum for parties! So is the web always the answer to the engagement question?

BTW: the picture is the Ealing Borough Coat of Arms - I publish that with a full sense of the irony there!