Andrew Steven's analysis of the campaign and the result:
"By-elections come and go and at the end of the day it's only the result that matters. Then again, while we all remember the 'Little and Sad' by-election of 1995, the victorious Lib Dem MP was subsequently written out of history by the Boundary Commission and the Labour challenger (Phil Woolas) took the revised seat in 1997 anyhow. But does a by-election fought on the issue of Lib Dems' being 'soft on drugs' sound a little familiar in a more recent context?
For me, the key characteristic of Labour's campaign, applied using the Littleborough and Saddleworth via Hodge Hill template, was the militantly Communitarian language and enforcement of the dichotomy that automatically presented itself. Anti-social behaviour is bad, yes, and Labour is naturally against it. Jody Dunn wasn't the Labour candidate so was, by that token, in favour of anti-social behaviour. Of course, any assertion requires evidence and this was evident politically in the writings of Mark Oaten et al and professionally in the Liberal Democrat candidate's recent past. At times, the strain showed in the Labour candidate's demeanour, as he parroted for the fiftieth time that day this logic and kept the campaign simple, avoiding discussion of any issues that didn't involve recidivist criminals or rampaging teenagers. It was a smart card to play though, any by-election these days is going to be difficult for Labour and by concentrating attention away from the government's record and keeping it focused on an omnipresent threat of junkies, ASBO-flouters and rat-boys, not to mention the candidate from Darlington's cheek in seeking election for a town 25 miles away, it ensured that issues were kept out of the occasion. In short, Labour's campaign was Amitai Etzioni's The Spirit of Community crossed with The League of Gentlemen.
But election campaigns in the Northeast of England are not run with the chattering classes of London in mind and Labour organisers might rightly point to how the menace of anti-social behaviour is an issue for many people in the town. Though it should be said that it's a certain wing of New Labour (Tom Watson and Fraser Kemp's) that enjoys the obsession with 'working class issues', helpfully cheered on by the Home Secretary elsewhere with his 'I tend to get very working class about crime' patter, as if such a complex issue could be explained away by affinity to particular socio-economic classifications (this from the man who wished he "could bottle-up religion"). Similarly, the Lib Dems applied reductionist logic to their campaign to levels of car alarm sounding annoyance. A threat to close the town's hospital had hung over it for some time and as the Labour candidate was a member of the party of the government of the day, automatically he must be in favour of closing it (the bump of his pregnant wife suggested otherwise to me). It was also amusing to see the young chap whose hard-edged 'Artlepudlian accent was apparent for all to see at the count, being labeled as some form of well-heeled New Labour metropolitan operator in the vein of his predecessor.
The difficulties the Tories faced in finding a candidate has been discussed at length and poring over their current misery might be seen as kicking the proverbial fallen man. However, it should be said that the Tories' campaign really was inept and badly-handled from day one, hardly the stuff of a credible government in waiting. It is somewhat over-egging the situation to fatuously declare that the fourth placing in Hartlepool entails the Tories being eclipsed by either Ukip or the Lib Dems nationally, but they are clearly going no further forward in the next few years.
So what can we take away from this? Two things to my mind. As I said, suggestions of a realingment on the right or the reordering of the three party system as a result of this by-election are far-fetched to say the least. So long as First Past The Post remains, so will the Tory Party. The media was quick to argue that Hartlepool was only the second time since the war that the official opposition had come fourth in a by-election, conveniently ignoring the occasion in 1989 when Labour came fourth in the Richmond by-election that saw William Hague enter the Commons (the presence of both Lib Dem and SDP candidates saw this happen).
Firstly, Labour's triangulation strategy is still an effective one, rendering the Tories almost reduced to fighting on obscure issues. In The Spectator this week, Michael Gove directs the following question to his ideological peer group: "If New Labour now calls itself the party of business, the future, the universities, hard-working families, the Atlantic alliance, strong defence and no-holds-barred crime-fighting, what is left to us? Fox-hunting, Gibraltar and the House of Lords?" Obviously in a town like Hartlepool, fox-hunting and the future of the House of Lords are scarcely going to motivate voters to come over to the Tories, though the town's strong military links might make the cause of Gibraltar salient for those of a certain age. It also points to the lack of a real and credible strategy of winning urban seats for the Tories seven years into this Labour government. The campaign of Jeremy Middleton, handled with the expertise and seriousness of an election to the post of rag officer in the local ex-poly rather than what you'd expect in a Parliamentary by-election, saw attacks on the Liberal Democrats on the issue of City of London taxes. The proverbial fag-paper insertion came into play on the rhetoric against anti-social behaviour from both the Conservatives and Labour, with prison being the only solution as far as they were concerned, leaving the Liberal Democrats open to accusations of being the drug-addict's friend by virtue of their more compassionate approach. As such, the by-election is notable for the closing down of space with which to debate issues such as drug addiction soundly and without fear of such a debate being misused by one's political opponents. Basically, drugs are bad, end of story. No debate. And if you don't agree with that statement then you're virtually culpable of poisoning communities yourself. Similarly, some have questioned the effectiveness of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in tackling the blight of disorderly behaviour in the community (it does almost appear to be a perverse form of honours system), yet to do so is to side with the criminal according to this logic. Drugs are a complex issue and to reduce symptoms of the human condition down to such a black and white level can ultimately only be to the detriment of society in the longer term.
Secondly, 'yah-boo' politics is here to stay, no matter what. The chattering classes in London might decry such things but to campaigners on the ground, any notion of 'new politics' is rendered meaningless upon sight of yet another hysterical Focus leaflet put out on an estate or accusations of 'not being local enough'. The Lib Dems misjudged the situation in Hartlepool entirely -- Peter Mandelson might have been more comfortable moving and shaking within the M25 but the annointment the GMB block vote conferred on him during his selection fourteen years ago held sway throughout his time as its MP. As we heard repeatedly, he certainly put the town on the map. In Hodge Hill, the Lib Dem candidate's affront to the electorate according to Labour was down to her lack of knowledge of place names and day job representing the interests of the mobile phone industry. In Hartlepool, the Lib Dem candidate's affront to electorate according to Labour was down to her lack of knowledge of local place names and day job representing drug addicts in court. Simply substitute 'Nokia Davies' for 'Jody Come Lately' and 'phone masts' for 'junkies'. Yet the Lib Dems' attempt to cast Iain Wright as 'Tony Blair's man' ultimately came to nil, the reduced majority being derived from Tony Blair himself rather than any so-called representative of the PM. The obsession with a 'Brent East script' reaked of arrogance, though some outlets of the media certainly learned their lines off by heart and got a little star-struck over the leading lady. The party was also smarting from the narrow-run contest in Hodge Hill and wrongly assumed Hartlepool's voters would share Lord Rennard's sense of injustice.
But... that's politics. Anyhow, the promised final post (from the Tory Conference) tomorrow."
And (naturally) LibDemWatch is having a gloat at Lord Rennard's expense:
"That's the question the Liberal Democrats are now asking, following the disappointments of Hartlepool and Hodge Hill, where they were denied their "rightful" victory.
The "Brent East script" that all you need to do is attack Labour, claim the Tories have no chance, promise anything and hijack local issues, while standing a "politically innocent" young woman as your candidate has again failed to work. Moreover, as a former adviser to Paddy Ashdown said last month, Iraq has become a "one-trick pony" for the Lib Dems.
If the Lib Dems can no longer win by-elections, then what's the point of their existence?
If more evidence is needed that Lord "Fatty" Rennard, the Lib Dem election supremo, is beginning to lose it just look at what he told yesterday's Independent:
The Conservatives have no councillors in Liverpool, Birmingham or Newcastle.
He has obviously forgotten (or chosen to ignore?) that in Birmingham there are plenty of Conservative councillors with whom the Lib Dems are now sharing power."
