Oldham East and Saddleworth election was a disgrace but what now.

It's not often I post in support of the  Lib-Dems, but in the case against Phil Woolas , I feel they were right.

Woolas  beat Liberal Democrat Elwyn Watkins in Oldham East and Saddleworth in May by just 103 votes. But Watkins challenged the result, claiming the Labour incumbent had lied about him in campaign literature. Most candidates would perhaps make such a claim after a defeat but Woolas' campaign literature was particularly offensive. One of which I've reproduced right. Other you can see here.


If the BNP had produced  a similar leaflet . I would not have been surprised, and simarly disgusted and I'm sure Labour would have condemned it outright. 
Of course I have not seen the leaflets produced by the Liberal Democrats in Oldham East and Saddleworth so we are tending to see only one side of the story and there may have been some very unpleasant literature from them during this campaign, and for the Lib-Dems to complain about unfair tactics is akin to a Wasp moaning that it had been stung by a Bee. Netherless this looks exceptionally bad and a rerun of the election is the right verdict.


Of course Phil Woolas  is not the only guilty one the role of his election agent should be investigated and it would be wrong to fight any Byelection with a different candidate but the same agent.

But what does this mean for the future of elections? Does it mean that prospective candidates will be reluctant to attack opponents who are engaging in dubious activities? I hope not but it does mean that we should look at the way elections are conducted.

I believe the returning officer should have a roll in vetting campaign literature and should have the power to suspend a leaflet from being distributed or force parties to rebut and produce corrections at they own expense.

For the Lib-Dems however this victory may well be a pyrrhic one as in theory they should romp home in any By-election irrespective  of who the Labour candidate would be. But if they fail then It will confirm their unpopularity in the UK following their betrayer of principles in the joining the coalition government So far the wind is with them in this constituency but I suspect they too might come under investigation and one wonders if we have not seen the whole nasty business  of the 2010 election in Oldham East and  Saddleworth  totally exposed.

Labour's Welsh Resurgence Continues.

 There were two by-elections in Wales this week  Labour gained a seat from Plaid in the Treherbet ward of Rhondda Cynon Taf.

Lab 883 (50.8; +9.7)
Plaid Cymru 855 (49.2; -9.7)
Majority 28
Turnout 40%
Lab gain from Plaid.
Percentage change is since May 2008.

Whilst Labour held a seat  in the Neath North ward of Neath Port Talbot.

Neath Port Talbot UA, Neath North
Thursday 14 October 2010 12:00
Lab 437 (57.2; -5.3)
Neath Port Talbot Independent Party 144 (18.8; -18.6)
Plaid Cymru 132 (17.3; +17.3)
LD Mathew McCarthy 51 (6.7; +6.7)
Majority 293
Turnout 24.08%
Lab hold
Percentage change is since May 2008

Information  gwydr.demon.com

Both these councils are Labour controlled and there it is often the case that voters use this opportunity to punish the ruling party and so this must be a disappointment for Plaid, though Treherbet has been a marginal council seat being regained by Plaid in the last council elections and local issues may have some influence on the result.

However the  the results reflect a growing swing to Labour in council by-elections in the UK and must be a worry for Plaid whom often find themselves vying for the same vote as Labour.

But the big losers so far are the Liberal Democrats who have an effective team in their excellent
Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors when it comes to fighting by elections and in the past have made great headway when it comes to these, but they appear to be losing votes  in council by-election and appear to be suffering from the backlash against the government more than the Tories and they seem unable to find candidates to fight by-elections in the same number the usually do. They seem to have only contested 3 of 11 Welsh By-elections since the General Election  (ALDC)

It is to early to see whether Plaid will suffer from the new rise in Labour popularity, clearly the election of a new leader as been a boost to the Party and it much to early  to predict any long term change. But as we approach the Assembly elections  Plaid must reengage withe the electorate in the Valleys in particular or they face a labour resurgence that will reestablish their total dominance of these areas.

The next By-elections include

•Swansea city council: By election on 21 October in Newton ward after the resignation of Liberal Democrat councillor Susan Waller. Term ends 2012. This may give some indication of the popularity of the Ruling group on the council.

•Carmarthenshire county council: By election on 4 November in Cenarth ward after the death of Independent councillor Haydn Jones. Term ends 2012. Again this might give some indication of popularity of the Ruling group on the council though Independents by their very nature do not suffer the same political backlash.

•Ceredigion county council: Vacancy in Ciliau Aeron ward after the disqualification of Plaid Cymru councillor Moelfryn Maskell, who was found by the Adjudication Panel of Wales to have misused his position in relation to planning applications. Term ends 2012. Tricky one for Plaid here for obvious reasons.

•Conwy county borough council: There is a byelection on 18 November in Eglwysbach ward after the resignation of Angharad Booth-Taylor of Plaid Cymru who is moving to Pembrokeshire. Marl ward has a vacancy after the resignation of Conservative councillor Linda Hurr. Both terms end in 2012. Again a tricky one for Plaid and as they lead the ruling group . Similarly could be an opportunity for to punish the Tories.

•Isle of Anglesey council: Byelection on 18 November in Rhosneigr ward after the resignation of 'Original Independent' councillor and former council leader Phil Fowlie, due to ill health (although he has since been disqualified from office). Term ends 2012.

Information from Indiigo Public affairs.

How many Lib-dem rebels will there be? and will it matter?

It seems that Mark Williams (see previous Blog) is not alone. In his own blog  Peter Black claims  up to thirty Lib-Dem MPs have said that they will vote against the lifting of the cap on tuition fees. This of course is over half the Parliamentary party. However the arithmetic means that even if we have one of the biggest party rebellion in  a UK parliamentary party 'the measure will still pass and I wonder if we are seeing a clever move by the Lib-Dems to have it both ways.

I'm sorry but I'm going to do some number crunching.

There are 650 members of Parliament, if we exclude the speaker and Sinn Féin (who will not take part in any vote)  the number is reduced to 644. So you need 323 seats for a majority The Tories have 306 which leaves them short by 17 of seats. With the Lib Dens 57 they have a majority of 40.

If 30 Lib-Dems were to vote against the measure this would reduce the majority to 10 small but passable and would allow some of the Liberal Democrats to save face, and you can’t guarantee the 8 Democratic Unionist would vote enbloc against the bill.

Therefore if the Liberal Democrats whips work out the numbers correctly they can help preserve the seeming integrity of individual members and the coalition at the same time.

Only if there was a challenge to the leadership of Nick Clegg would I be convinced that the Lib-Dem leadership will not be following me in its number crunching and working out just how many of its MPs voting against the hike in tuition fees can be allowed, before they end up causing a collapse  to the Libcon Coalition.

So I suspect that potential Lib-dem rebel will be allowed to speak out just so long as its clear that it will not do permanently damage to the LibCon government and see Lib-Dems going  into the next election portraying themselves as brave defenders of poor students in the hope that they will not be associated with the party leadership who  reneged on their pledge not to increase tuition fees. It’s a typical hypocritical Lib-Dem ploy but for some it just might work

Citzen Cable speaks to the People.

It is interesting that the Lib-Dem Rally (sorry conference) ended with Business Secretary Vince Cable warned yesterday that banks could face higher taxes if “offensive” bonuses are handed out at a time of economic crisis.

This of course went down well with the Party faithful Cable was seem prior to the General Election as the Cassandra who foresaw the Banking crisis where no one listened to him and now as Business Secretary will be the man to punish them..

Cable reminds me of Orson Wells as Citizen Cane. Who in a election against a corrupt city boss.

[I entered this campaign]...with one purpose only, to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy of Boss Jim W. Gettys' political machine, now in complete control of the government of this state. I made no campaign promises, because until a few weeks ago, I had no hope of being elected. Now however, I am something more than a hope. Jim Gettys, Jim Gettys has something less than a chance. Every straw vote, every independent poll shows that I'll be elected. Now I can afford to make some promises. The working man, the working man and the slum child know they can expect my best efforts in their interests. The nation's ordinary citizens know that I'll do everything in my power to protect the underprivileged, the underpaid, and the underfed.

Orson Wells Citizen Cane (R.K.O. 1941)

Of course Kane was as bad as Gettys and his campaign was always about power but the rhetoric of Citizen Cable and other real politicians (where they are always on our side) never comes to fruition. Already the right wing press are rallying behind the money interests. Who whilst they were as critical as the rest of us a year ago now rally around the capitalist freemarket agenda, and the result of this will undoubtedly lead to him making only cosmetic changes to banking regulations.

Because the idea that he was a lone voice pointing out the failings in the economy is largely a myth which the Lib-dens gleefully have promoted since and particularly in the build up to the General Election. In fact like most politicians. Citizen Cable shifts with the wind.

Julian Knight in the Independent in April of this year got to the heart Citizen Cable right. He wrote.

Take, for example, the Government's quantitive easing programme. Cable chided this as Robert Mugabe economics – a good throwaway line but wrong. In 2003, when the first alarms were being raised internationally about Gordon Brown's massive spending splurge, Cable was openly supportive of the Chancellor. He has separately called for retention of the Bank of England's independence while calling on it to cut rates. And in the depths of the crisis, Cable first backed the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds and then a few months later said it was a mistake. I wonder if he still has the same view. Tony Benn – not someone I regularly quote – put politicians into two categories: signposts or weathercocks. Mr Benn says he has time for signposts who stick to their principles and are consistent, but none for weathercocks who go with whatever makes them look good and court popularity. Mr Cable is definitely a weathercock, and if he were to achieve the chancellorship in a hung parliament, we'd see this writ large.

The fact that Citizen Cable has already been sidelined whilst giving him the air of authority to prevent any true rebellion. He will be like Harri Webb's Our Budgie

"If you ignore him he'll squawk and Squawk
And rattle the bars of his pretty cage.
But he'll never get out
He'll never try it.
And a cloth on the cage
Will keep him quiet".

To parphase Harri's last lines.

"This futile bird
it seems to me
Would  mas perfect
Lib-Dem  MP"

Kennedy leads dissent. Peter Black ignores it.

Former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has spoken out against the proposed Libcon coalition s proposed cuts.

Mr Kennedy says “he is reluctant to become an irritant, sniping at the government from the sidelines”.

But he warns those making decisions about spending “not to throw the baby out with the bath water”.

It is interesting that both Peter Black and Subordinate centre have remained silent over this as they were quick to point up dissent at the Plaid conference.

Kennedy however may well be expressing the views of many Lib-Dems as they head to in Liverpool for their conference .

I suspect that one of the reasons they chose the City was they believed that they would be in control of the Metropolitan City Council, but alas they lost it to Labour last May.

And the the leader of the Lib Dems in Liverpool  and former council leader has said "he fears people will see no point in voting for the party after it formed the coalition government".

Oh dear. Here in Wales the Lib-Dems buoyed with a close results in Swansea West, Newport East, Merthyr .and Pontypridd would be claiming that they would take these seats in next years Assembly Elections.

Alas the pointers seem to indicate they will lose constituency seats including that of La Pasionaria and have to rely on the regional seats to keep they numbers as they already are.

Peter Black showed his astuteness when he declined to put his name forward for Swansea West. Even though a Lib-Dem victory there could well cost the Party his regional seat.

Even if they were to win the Election court case against Phil Woolas in The Oldham East and Saddleworth , and I hope they will .it looks like a particularly nasty case. It will only open an honest nest where they own dubious practices will be called into count and their portrayal of themselves as the honest Party will be brought to public scrutiny.

Clegg and Lib-Dems backed regressive budget

Liberal Democrat leader whose “not in charge” of the country when David Cameron mind is understandably elsewhere after the birth of his new child, has defended the coalition government's analysis of the Budget.


Mr Clegg said a report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), which said the Budget has hit poorest families the hardest, was "by definition partial".

"It does not include the things we want to do to get people off benefits and into work,"

If the government plans were to create millions of jobs. Clegg, would in any case be talking about an aspiration surely? No government plans could guarantee they would bring employment unless they created jobs by a form of Roosevelt’s New Deal (as opposed to the last governments version in the UK which was just a slogan and little more than an attempt to put a plaster on a gaping wound.).

Indeed it is interesting that in The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism (Liberator) 2004 that (Four of the contributors of which are now part of the coalition government). Clegg argued that the freeemarket was the solution to our social problems. As opposed to the original “Orange book” “We can conquer Unemployment (1929) in which The Liberals under David Lloyd George had campaigned on a comprehensive programme of public works. Not to dissimilar to the New Deal, and in many ways more imaginative that Labours position at the time.

The main thrust of the current coalition government is to" help people back to work" by cutting benefits which is somewhat in tune with the ideas of the latter Orange book . The fact that there are very few jobs for people forced of benefit and the reluctance of employers to take on the long term unemployed eludes them.

Clegg was a cheerleader for the last budget, and you don’t have to be an economic expert to realise who would be the real victims of George Osborne policies then and the IFS report confirm our suspicions..

Can those on the Left of the Lib-Dems who were opposed to the latest Orange book and have still have some vestige of believe in social liberalism and honesty such as those in the Beveridge Group. really carry on in a Party that is becoming indistinguishable  from its coalition partners?