A Good Week For Nick Clegg?

"Another Good Week for Nick Clegg" is the Pravda like headline on THIS post by Stephen Tall on LibDem Voice. Actually, no. It's been a bad week for Nick Clegg, just as it's been a bad week for all politicians in the main three parties. I find it difficult to think how it can have been a good week for anyone - even David Cameron. This week has brought more shame and public opprobrium on politicians of all parties than in the previous decade put together. I doubt whether Nick Clegg himself thinks it has been a good week for him, and I am, certain David Cameron wouldn't think so on his own behalf either. Part of the problem in the political blogosphere is that we spend too much time wondering if it has been a good week for individuals, and sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture.

No. It has not been a good week for anyone in the main three parties.

Taxpayer Paying for Labour Canvassing

Mark Pack on LibDem Voice draws attention to Labour MP Glenda Jackson using the taxpayer funded Communications Allowance to solicit voting intention pledges. This is exactly what many of us warned this scandal of an allowance would be used for. Jackson's seat is under threat at the next election from Sarah Teather Tory candidate Chris Philp, I think, because of boundary changes. Any MP who uses the Communications Allowance for this sort of party political advantage needs hauling over the coals. I trust Ms Teather's Mr Philp's letter is already winging its way to the Commons authorities.

UPDATE: I mistakenly thought Sarah Teather was the challenger here in the original wording of the post. Thanks to Luke Akehurst in the comments for putting me right!

The Pravda-esque Quality of LibDem Voice

If a Tory MP is involved in some sort of scandal you can bet it will not only be written about on ConservativeHome but heavily commented on. The same goes for Labour Home. Yet try as I might, I can find no mention of Paul Burstow's censure for using Commons postage for illicit means on LibDem Voice. Yet the site has regularly lambasted politicians of other parties for similar misdemeanours. The site rarely comments on any issue like this, which are in any way embarrassing to the LibDems. No reason why they should, I suppose. It's a free country and they can run the site how they like, but of the three party-related sites LibDem Voice is undoubtedly the most Pravda-esque.

UPDATE: At 6.52pm this evening LibDem Voice put up a post on Mr Burstow. Who says blogs have no influence? :) A complete coincidence, I am sure.

What Does 'Local' Mean & Does it Matter?

Yesterday the LibDems' Head of Innovations wrote a post on LibDem Voice attacking the Tory candidate in Crewe & Nantwich for claiming to be local when he wasn't. The fact of the matter is that he has lived in the area all his life and currently lives just a stone's throw from the constituency. Apparently Mark had taken exception to a Tory leaflet which claimed the LibDem candidate (who replaced the previous one who they dumped) wasn't local. She lives twenty miles away. The Labour candidate lives 175 miles away.

This rather boring and tedious argument is played out in every election campaign, especially by-elections as each of the candidates seeks to prove, in the words of the Harry Enfield character that "I'm considerably more local than you".

Mark Pack's evidence for Edward Timpson not being local included these astonishing shock horror facts...

• He was born in Knutsford (20 miles from Crewe)
• Went to Durham university
• Er, he lives in Cheshire
• Ran the New York Marathon (!)
  

And so it goes on. Laughable, eh? Indeed, to their credit, several LibDem commenters think so too...

Sal says:

This is a truely desperately embarrassing small minded dim witted attack. Do we really have nothing better to do? Nothing better to discuss? I despair.

Elaine Woodard says:

Why do all Parties seem to want to get into a debate about how local a candidate is, particularly in by-elections? What is more important is what a candidate stands for and how good an MP they’d make. This sort of sniping just turns me off.

Hywel Morgan says:

If the election is going to be conducted on this level I won’t bother getting in my car! We referred to both Michael Carr (Ribble Valley) and David Chidgey (Eastleigh) as the local candidate and neither of them lived in the Constituency. Both had strong links with the area which meant that it was firstly credible to make such a claim but also that any attacks on them for not being local would backfire.He may not live in the constituency - but lets not try to make him out to be Tim Palmer mark 2.

Joe Taylor agrees:

Hywel has a point - This Sort Of Thing doesn't really make me want to go out and deliver loads of leaflets, even in sunny Crewe. More positive stuff about our candidate, please!

RMC has decided that he's had enough of the LibDems if this puerile attack is the best they can do...

Mark, this is pathetic stuff. You are the Head of Innovations for the party. I effectively pay your salary out of donations, whilst small I admit, I make to the party so how about some innovative thinking. This constant desire for "local" candidates is a real hindrance on LibDem progress and getting good quality candidates. It is an ethos, which results seemingly in the lead local councillor/activist getting selected. I am quite keen to become a PPC, however, I grew up on the south coast, have worked in London, and now work in the South West and discover my local party chair needs to sponsor my application. I am not really local to anywhere so I have decided not to bother whilst the party has this "local is best" mindset.

But the piece de resistance is provided by Ruth Bright, former LibDem, Candidate for East Hampshire.

Mark - whilst I was Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for East Hants (claiming to be a local) I had the temerity to give birth to a baby outside the constituency. I am really sorry about that - sort of feel I let the side down there.

Let me hold my hands up and admit that I was as guilty as anyone in playing the local card. In North Norfolk I actually lived in the constituency whereas the LibDem MP lived 15 miles away in Norwich. I constantly reminded people of this, but a fat lot of good it did me.

In the Bromley by-election, the LibDem Candidate Ben Abbotts lived a mile outside the constiutuency in Beckenham, and the Tory Bob Neill lived three or four miles away in Tower Hamlets, yet if you believed LibDem literature, their man was a complete local and Bob was from outer Mars. Indeed, Ben Abbotts' situation is eactly akin to that of Edward Timpson.

So, does it matter where someone lives, do voters actually give a damn? In truth, the answer is that some do, some don't. But far more important is the quality of the candidate and what they stand for. The truth of the matter is that Edward Timpson, from what I have seen so far, seems to be an outstanding candidate and that's why he is going to attract this kind of attack.

I'm going to be very circumspect in future about what I write about this by-election. Ealing taught me a big lesson, and while I will readily point out facile posts like Mark Pack's you're not going to get a daily running commentary on what's going on there. I think I will leave that to my esteemed colleagues on ConservativeHome.

Just How Bad Was It for the LibDems? LibDem Voice Comes of Age

It's interesting to see that some of the LibDem blogs are beginning to enter into quite an intelligent about about the local election results. They, unlike their political masters, seem more able to smell the coffee. Rob Fenwick, who runs LibDem Voice had this to say on Jeremy Hargreaves' blog.

I have to confess I’d be happier if I woke up tomorrow and MC was back in his natural stamping ground of foreign affairs and someone, I’ll take practically anyone, else was leader. He’s been in post for a year and bit now, and my personal view is that if he heads up a GE campaign, he’ll be awful. That’s a view I’ve held since before he became leader, and the most recent elections only serve to bolster it a little bit. I’ve cut him slack, I will continue to cut him
slack for another year, but the purpose of my post was to sound an alarm bell.

I can perfectly understand your desire, and indeed the desire of the majority of the LD blogosphere to talk up the results, but statements like “on Thursday there were losses in some places, but gains in others” are, like James says, bordering on Blairite spin! In a major test of public opinion across the UK we lost four councils. Net, we lost hundreds of councillors. That’s a reversal of fortune, and it’s not a minor one. I don’t think anyone needs to get a grip, as I don’t think anyone is reading too much in to what happened yesterday - but that doesn’t mean that what happened yesterday wasn’t very serious.

This is a very different take on events from the view expressed by Rob's LibDem Voice colleague Mark Park on the New Statesman blog. But Rob Fenwick has now gone one further and posted a lengthy missive in LibDem Voice HERE, headlined OPINION: WILL THE ELECTION RESULTS SPELL THE END FOR MEZIES CAMPBELLS'S LEADERSHIP: THE ANSWER IS IN YOUR HANDS AS MUCH AS HIS. It's worth reading in full, and I suspect he will have a lot of abuse heaped on him for being so honest, but it makes a refreshing change to see something so controversial on LibDem Voice. IMHO it marks LibDem Voice's coming of age. Here's a snippet...

In England, and to a lesser extent Wales, the momentum is with the Conservatives, and crucially - with David Cameron. Above all else, we discovered today that middle England is beginning to fall in love David Cameron, and it seems highly possible that at this point he’s doing the necessary things to walk up Downing Street to number 10 at the next election. Arguing that they should have achieved a couple of percentage points more than they did is folly when they’re ten points ahead of Labour in the polls, and nearly a thousand councillors up tonight.

Conversely, tonight indicates that middle England has not warmed to our leader. After his first full year as leader, he failed his first major electoral test (bearing in mind the caveats above). This firt electoral test seems to indicate that Ming Campbell is an electoral liability - not an asset. Tonight, the prospect of how the public will respond to our leader in a General Election is not a happy one. It seems likely that the party will allow Ming Campbell to stay in place to try a second electoral test next year - he won himself some significant political capital at the most recent party conference. Yesterday and today, he spent that capital. If he fails his next major electoral test, beyond doubt he will have to go. The challenge for Ming
himself tonight is to take a good hard look in the mirror, and decide whether he should jump before his party considers pushing him. He has to ask himself if, when the lights are on him in a General Election, the public will respond warmly to him and deliver the Liberal Democrats a boost in seats - or whether Cameron’s Tories will deliver us, and him, a brutal squeeze. I suspect that after the last fourty-eight hours, he knows the answer to that question.

Even more interesting than Fenwick's post itself are the 65 comments on it - an unprecedented number on LibDem Voice. Very few attempt to defend Ming Campbell. Other LibDems with interesting things to say are Norfolk Blogger, Jeremy Hargreaves, Pigeon Post, Stephen Tall, Liberal England and Suz Blog.

The LibDems Learn the Art of Spin

I wasn't going to write about this because it's never nice when someone loses their job, even if they have been incompetent, but when I saw the statement Chris Rennard put out about the LibDem Head of Press Mark Littelwood"moving on" from his job, I thought it must have been written by Peter Mandelson.

"Liberal Democrat Chief Executive Chris Rennard confirmed today that Mark Littlewood would be leaving his position as Head of Media in the next two months. “The party is very grateful to Mark for playing an invaluable role in the party in the last General Election campaign and in Menzies Campbell’s first year as Leader. During his time as Head of Media the party expanded considerably the size and effectiveness of its media team. Mark indicated to the party his intention to move on last November.” Mark Littlewood told his media team that he had “enjoyed working with the party over the last two and a half years”, and told them of his plans to undertake a number of freelance PR projects in the future. The Liberal Democrats are now seeking a new Head of Media who will report directly to Jonathan Oates,
the new Director of Policy & Communications who takes up his post on March 19th."

So we are really supposed to believe that his departure has nothing to do with his disastrous briefing of Ming's speech last weekend. Oh, pull the other one. The LibDems make great play of being the "honest" party. Don't make me laugh.

In the comments on THIS thread of Mark Littlewood, the editor of LibDem Voice Rob Fenwick questioned my evidence that Mark Littlewood was the spinner. He knew as well as I did who it was. Interestingly LibDem Voice is being quite coy about the whole thing. Ironically, they had a POST revelling in the Mundell/Mercer episode headlined IT'S NOT A GOOD AFTERNOON TO BE A TORY MP. Nor a LibDem Press officer, it would seem.

The fallout from all this is that Ming Campbell will be forced to reaffirm his commitment to PR at the LibDems Welsh Conference this weekend. Perhaps this indicates a minor victory for the left wingers in the LibDems, who have for a long time been outwitted by the Orange Bookers. The long terms effects, of course, is that the LibDems will now come under heavy questioning on both the question of PR and what they would do in a hung parliament. Ming's maxim of "maximum seats, maximum votes" was a good ploy while it lasted. But it will no longer hold water.