Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, 9 February

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All of that, plus of course the fact that "Lib Dems in free fall and about to collapse" was always a lie told by spinsters and believed by idiots.

"LibDems in worst trouble since late '80's" was accurate both before and after the by-election though (interestingly even in the late '80's and early '90's (when they were polling similer numbers to now) they did very well in by-elections).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No; now he *was* in freefall before the by-election (amazing what session of PMQ's did to him actually...) and according to recent polls Huhne (who both looks and sounds a bit like John Major) was in the lead. What this will probably do will give his campaign enough of a boost to halt the decline and begin to recover. Or will it?

[minionofmidas]

You know what one of your favorite MPs called this?
Of course he's referring precisely to the surrounding "free fall" news.

Btw, I guess a lot of this result can probably be explained as a sympathy vote for Charlie Kennedy ... rally to support a Scotsman done in by Sassenachs!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You know what one of your favorite MPs called this?

You mean the Beast of Bolsover? Yep.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the fact that he did a bit of phone canvessing there; by the sound of it he must have only done the Rosyth/Inverkeithing area...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It probably made LibDems in Dunfermline itself more motivated to go out and vote, yes. It's also worth pointing out that in Scotland the LibDems still have a leader (Mr Deputy First Minister) and IIRC he was the first person mentioned by Rennie in his victory speech.
One other thing; I think that Labour may have made the mistake of assuming that c.10thousand votes was as high as the LibDems would get in a by-election (look at the by-elections from the last Parliament). If so they must have forgotton that Dunfermline & West Fife is a very socially mixed seat...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Early indications are that Rennie is either dishonest or a moronic hack: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4704066.stm

Forth bridge tolls do not have "national significance". Neither does the state of Dunfermline town centre, 700 job losses in the Inverkeithing area or random hospital related scare stories.

Maybe what he said has been taken out of context, but he does seem to be quite the arrogant prick (reminds me of someone elected in another socially mixed (but in this case more urban and with less whites) constituency in a by-election a few years ago...).

Oh and the way the three leadership candidates are trying to milk this for all it's worth is as pathetic as it is blatent

I will also add that a comment I sent into the BBC "have your say" thing, correcting a mistake (the board says "Why did Labour lose 11,000 votes to the Lib Dems?" This isn't true; roughly ten thousand less people voted Labour than in the General Election and the overwhelming majority seem to have stayed at home. The LibDems won roughly four thousand more votes; and they seem to have largely come from the Tories and SNP) has not been published. The error hasn't been corrected either...

[afleitch]

Early indications are that Rennie is either dishonest or a moronic hack: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4704066.stm

Forth bridge tolls do not have "national significance". Neither does the state of Dunfermline town centre, 700 job losses in the Inverkeithing area or random hospital related scare stories.

Maybe what he said has been taken out of context, but he does seem to be quite the arrogant prick (reminds me of someone elected in another socially mixed (but in this case more urban and with less whites) constituency in a by-election a few years ago...).

Oh and the way the three leadership candidates are trying to milk this for all it's worth is as pathetic as it is blatent

I will also add that a comment I sent into the BBC "have your say" thing, correcting a mistake (the board says "Why did Labour lose 11,000 votes to the Lib Dems?" This isn't true; roughly ten thousand less people voted Labour than in the General Election and the overwhelming majority seem to have stayed at home. The LibDems won roughly four thousand more votes; and they seem to have largely come from the Tories and SNP) has not been published. The error hasn't been corrected either...

The problem is the turnout was pretty high for a by-election, as Matthew Parris mentioned in his column its the third highest turnout for a by-election since 1997 and is only 10% down on the 2005 election. The SNP vote went up so I doubt that SNP voters were switching to the Lib Dems. There was no traditional 'third party squeeze' The Tory vote fell by around 2 to 3% but that could not count for the Lib Dems margin of victory.

Professor John Cutice himself has said that was a plain Lab to Lib swing. Labour voters didn't 'stay at home.' They came out in good numbers for a windy last-minute February by-election and they voted Lib Dem. That was also the message coming out loud and clear from the doorsteps.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The SNP vote went up so I doubt that SNP voters were switching to the Lib Dems.

The SNP % went up, but they lost about 800 votes from 2005

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Tory % vote fall was pretty small, that's true, but their raw vote fell about about 1600; it wasn't that far off halving.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is the raw numbers flat out disagree with that assumption; close to ten thousand Labour voters from 2005 did not vote for the Labour candidate. There were close to four thousand more LibDem voters. About 2500 less people voted SNP or Tory than in 2005. The logical explanation is that of the ten thousand or so Labour voters from 2005 that didn't vote Labour, about eight thousand or so stayed at home, while about two thousand or so voted LibDem (a direct switch of two thousand votes is still quite a lot o/c). Maybe it was more like three thousand switching, maybe it was less than two thousand, but either way it seems pretty clear that a lot of Labour voters *did* stay at home.
Either way the BBC is wrong as either way 11,000 Labour voters didn't switch to the LibDems.

[afleitch]

The problem is that electoral maths can often disguise what actually happens on the ground. I got an email from a friend of mine who was helping the Tories out for a week. The doorstep 'aura' was that Labour voters were planning to switch their votes to the Lib Dems as they ran a deceitful but good campaign about toll fees which played well with the commuter voters; those who travelled into Edinburgh etc for work.

Most of the Fife commuter vote was admittedly 'soft Labour' and was prone to switch. That was who the Lib Dems targeted to great effect. Labour expected, but never got, the old 'mining village' vote, where turnout was also down, but on par with the rest of the constituency.

The postal ballots also helped the Lib Dems secure their 'honeypot' voter; the student vote. Commuting students to the Edinburgh universities, St Andrews and possibly as far as Dundee it seems used the postal ballot. Many students were effectively on exam leave until a fortnight before the elections and some were back at home.

It probably numbered a few hundred voters at least, but was enough to give the Lib Dems a boost.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The problem is that electoral maths can often disguise what actually happens on the ground.

And vice-versa

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but two to three thousand or so votes swinging directly from one party to another is quite a lot (even if it's a small % of those not voting for their previous party) and is the sort of thing that tends to seem bigger than it actually is (I think I may have phrased that wrong, but I know what I meant...).
In general this is a good example of a perfect storm type Liberal by-election win; just enough votes coming from a lot of different sources.

[Peter]

The problem is the turnout was pretty high for a by-election, as Matthew Parris mentioned in his column its the third highest turnout for a by-election since 1997 and is only 10% down on the 2005 election.

And there we were all thinking that good turnout would favour Labour. Scrub that theory from now on.

The electoral maths can always present a somewhat murky picture. The Conservative vote drop can reasonably be attributed to tactical voters switching to the Lib Dems - it was no secret that the Tories had no chance in this seat.

The SNP actual vote drop - I don't think so - my feeling is that the % vote gain was a genuine representation of feeling rather than some statistical fluke. It was well advertised that the SNP considered themselves to have an equal chance to the Lib Dems to take this seat, and I don't think much has changed within the SNP since the general election, so not that many voters will have walked out.

With the feeling that their party had some chance, SNP voters were much less likely to go tactical than their Tory counterparts. The drop in the SNP actual vote was most likely caused by people simply not caring about a by-election because it does not have the same significance as a general election and/or being unavailable to vote. Remember this by-election was only called on 19 January - barely 3 weeks before the actual date - if you were due to be away from the seat on that date, it would be difficult to arrange a postal vote at such short notice.

Undoubtedly there were a lot of Labour voters who stayed at home or couldn't vote for one reason or another. There would have been a few Lib Dems similarly situated. All tolled, I would estimate that about 4,000 Labour voters switched, especially when you take into account that there was a slight "other" gain in actual votes.

[Ben.]

Dunfermiline West will be regained. Governments have lost seats to the Lib Dems in every parliament. 1997-2001 was afluke.

Like Bermonsey?

To be honest the local Labour Party needs to both be motivated and eager for a long period of activity (which in a seat like Dunfermline it probably hasn’t been for a very long time) and at the same time Rennie needs to prove to be a disaster as a local MP (a-la Gill in Leicester South) and while it’s still very early his victory speech and general demeanour seem to suggest that he’s a perfectly able and capable figure.

I doubt that Rennie will be a disaster or that Labour will be able to put pressure on the seat for the next three years to undermine him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s able to entrench himself like Hughes in Bermondsey or Teather in Brent East… then again with a Scottish leader in a general election maybe Labour will have a better chance, though it must be said Brown pretty much was the Labour candidate in this by-election and look what happened! If Brown as the face of the Labour Party in a contest effectively run by his allies can’t win a by-election in a formerly safe Labour seat in his own backyard you can kiss-good-bye to a significant number of Labour’s marginals at the next election.     

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And there we were all thinking that good turnout would favour Labour. Scrub that theory from now on.

Not sure about scrubbing the theory; but it's pretty clear that it needs to be modified; in other words, scrub it in cases of socially mixed seats (like this one) but keep for the likes of Brum Hodge Hill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unable to vote yes, but (unless LibDems are different in Scotland to round here) choosing to stay at home, no. Well not more than a handful.

===

The BBC still haven't added my correction about the 11 thousand votes; don't suppose they will now. Interestingly they've published more than a few comments from people claiming that the LibDems will win the next General Election.
Go figure.

[minionofmidas]

Early indications are that Rennie is either dishonest or a moronic hack: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4704066.stm

Forth bridge tolls do not have "national significance".

Remember that national, in Scotland, means Scotland-wide. A Forth Bridge toll does sound nationally significant to me then. (I don't know how true the story is, mind, and I do not care)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Remember that national, in Scotland, means Scotland-wide. A Forth Bridge toll does sound nationally significant to me then. (I don't know how true the story is, mind, and I do not care)

Maybe, but he was speaking in Slough

[minionofmidas]

Remember that national, in Scotland, means Scotland-wide. A Forth Bridge toll does sound nationally significant to me then. (I don't know how true the story is, mind, and I do not care)

Maybe, but he was speaking in Slough

He's still a Scot. The idea that "national" is confusing to non-Scots probably takes getting used to.

[afleitch]

'National' is sort of interchangable, but you have to be careful where you are or who you are speaking to

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He's still a Scot. The idea that "national" is confusing to non-Scots probably takes getting used to.

True






But he was still speaking in Slough

===
2003 Holyrood results in Dunfermline West make for interesting reading: Lab 8664, SomeSaveOurHospitalCandidate 4584, SNP 4372, LibDem 3636, Other parties etc.etc.etc.

[afleitch]

SomeSaveOurHospitalCandidate 4584

Not again!

At least it's not as bad as the schools.

'How dare you shut down our massive local school as due to demographic change there are only 67 pupils. Its the best little school in the world. I don't care if it's a 1970's Port-a-cabin with mold and leakage. I don't even care if it has asbestos. It's OUR asbestos! We are going to demostrate and get our picture taken by the local newspaper, pushing our kids to the front and asking them to fold their arms and look sad. Don't think we wont! We are all on incapacity benefit anyway!, we have the time!'

Sorry. End rant.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've read that some people are estimating that the LibDems spent more than £70,000 on the by-election; I guess I'm just showing by niavity, but I thought the limit was about £10,000? Or is there some loophole?
Either way it's a disgrace (this isn't partisan bitching either; other parties have probably done similer things as well)... you should NOT be able to buy yourself a seat in the Commons.

===
Decided to see if the electoral commisions site has anything on this; apparently while the limits for General Election campaigns are reasonable (£7,150+7p per elector in county/5p per elector in borough constituencies) the limit for by-elections is... £100,000. Is there a reason for that? That's just disgusting...

[Peter]

The (non-partisan) Neill Report of 98/99 recommended the limit and this is all it had to say as far as I can tell:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The proposals were adopted somewhere in the mammoth Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Its worth considering that in some of the larger constituencies, such as the Isle of Wight, you can presently spend on the order of £15,000 in a general election campaign. In Dunfermline and West Fife it would have been around £10,500.

Lets also not forget that in any general election, there is not just the 646 local campaigns spending money to whathever limit exists, there is also a national campaign occurring that is regualted by different limits - I think the present figure is £20 million, averaging to around £31,000 per constituency. Looking at it that way, a more accurate way of looking at the "total" limit on spending in Dunfermline and West Fife would have been about £41,000 at the last general election. So, the £70,000 figure isn't as bad as its made to sound and provided the money is spent and declared properly, the limits probably do place a realistic limit on by-election campaign spending.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lets also not forget that in any general election, there is not just the 646 local campaigns spending money to whathever limit exists, there is also a national campaign occurring that is regualted by different limits

That's certainly true, but the nature of the national campaign is a world away from constituency campaigning; yes you can run TV ads and stick up billboards but you can't print a forests worth of election literature or have a huge campaign office in a certain constituency or have an army of people going door-to-door in a certain constituency.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but what the money is spent on in the national campaign is very, very different to constituency campaigning, it's effects aren't really distributed evenly... and so on.
I'm quite convinced that a couple of local M.P's around here only got in last time because they illegally (and under the table o/c) went over the limit by a few thousand quid; if they were allowed to spend £70,000 I dread to think what they'd have spent the money on...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not *quite* as obscene as it first sounds, but it's still pretty sickening.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not really. If the idea that c.£40k is usually spent (even if indirectly) on a constituency during a General Election, there's still no excuses for either a limit of £100,000 or spending £70,000 on by-elections. Maybe due to the lack of a national campaign the limits should be a bit higher for by-elections than £7500+xp per voter, but I just don't see the justification for a limit that (in practice) allows parties to buy themselves more seats in the Commons.

[minionofmidas]

How much did Labour spend? With all these campaign visits and such - and with the local impression reported here pre-election that Labour had "campaigned too much",  I wouldn't be surprised to here they outspent the LibDems. (Just as, even as OG Simpson poured hundreds of thousands into staying out of jail, the prosecutor easily outspent the defense.)
I wonder how low turnout would be if the spending limit was the same for by-elections as for Westminster, by the way.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How much did Labour spend?

No idea; and my view of the £100,000 limit would be the same even if they spent a similer amount of money. Like I said, this isn't a partisan whine.

IIRC we didn't spend *much* in the Birmingham and Leicester by-elections a few years ago; hardly any leaflets were sent in Birmingham for one thing... and the ones that were were pretty cheap...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well campaign visits don't really cost much; it's basically just the cost of hotel bills (if that). Gordon Brown wouldn't have cost a thing (not that he was there when it actually mattered in the final day or so) and Scottish M.P's from that general area wouldn't have cost much either. Campaign expenditure is mostly from leaflets, posters, signs... and apparently (in this case) running a huge campaign office in the constituency (actually that *might* have taken up the majority of Rennie's funds).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My guess is that it would usually be higher; almost all by-election literature is negative in the extreme.

[minionofmidas]

Yes ... I wonder if a lot of people are even aware that there's an election, though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes ... I wonder if a lot of people are even aware that there's an election, though.

Well people do sometimes vote in local by-elections
Seriously though, I'd be suprised if anyone in Durfermline et al wasn't aware that Squire had died and that when an M.P dies, there's a by-election.
At the very least the local media should make it clear that there's one on... same for local by-elections actually.

[minionofmidas]

Yes ... I wonder if a lot of people are even aware that there's an election, though.

Well people do sometimes vote in local by-elections
Seriously though, I'd be suprised if anyone in Durfermline et al wasn't aware that Squire had died and that when an M.P dies, there's a by-election.
At the very least the local media should make it clear that there's one on... same for local by-elections actually.

The local media?
Well, this was in Scotland, so they do actually exist in a meaningful way, I'll grant you that.