CREWE and NANTWICH BYELECTION RESULT

Cause:             Death of Hon. Mrs. Gwyneth Patricia Dunwoody (Lab) on
                     17th April 2008
Declared at:       02:25 AM
Returning Officer: Brian Silvester (Mayor of Crewe and Nantwich)
                     Paul Ancell (Chief Executive) as Acting Returning 
Officer
Electorate:        71,963
Turnout:           57.7%
Total votes:       41,856
Spoiled ballots:   67
Total valid votes: 41,498

BRICK, The Flying          The Official Monster Raving Loony Party    236
  (Nicholas Charles Elsworth Delves)    
DUNWOODY, Moyra Tamsin     The Labour Party Candidate              12,679
GARRETT, Gemma Dawn                                                   113
NATTRASS, Michael Henry    UK Independence Party                      922
ROBERTS, David Alan        English Democrats - "Putting England
                             First!"                                  275
SHENTON, Elizabeth Alice
  Ruth                     Liberal Democrat                         6,040
SMITH, Robert Andrew       Green Party                                359
THOROGOOD, Paul Richard    Cut Tax On Petrol And Diesel               118
TIMPSON, Anthony Edward    The Conservative Party Candidate        20,539
WALKLATE, Mark James                                                  217

RECENT ELECTORAL HISTORY

                        CHESHIRE, CREWE and NANTWICH [287]

Election Electors T'out Candidate               Party Votes   %  Ch.%

1992     68,307   81.9  NOTIONAL                Lab   26,622  47.6
                        ELECTION                C     21,751  38.9
                                                L Dem  6,991  12.5
                                                GP       579*  1.0
                                                  maj. 4,871   9.7

1997     68,472   73.9  Hon. Mrs. G.P. Dunwoody Lab   29,460  58.2  +10.6
                        M.W. Loveridge          C     13,662  27.0  -11.9
                        D.J. Cannon             L Dem  5,940  11.7  - 0.8
                        P. Astbury          RP     1,543*  3.1
                                                  maj.15,798  31.2

2001     69,040   60.2  Hon. Mrs. G.P. Dunwoody Lab   22,556  54.3  - 3.9
                        D.R. Potter             C     12,650  30.4  + 3.5
                        D.J. Cannon             L Dem  5,595  13.5  + 1.7
                        R.P. Croston            UKIP     746*  1.8
                                                  maj. 9,906  23.9

2005     71,628   60.7  Hon. Mrs. G.P. Dunwoody Lab   21,240  48.8  - 5.5
                        Mrs. E.H. Moore-Dutton  C     14,162  32.6  + 2.2
                        P.D. Roberts            L Dem  8,083  18.6  + 5.1
                                                  maj. 7,078  16.2

[Death]
2008     71,963   58.2  A.E. Timpson            C     20,538  49.5  +16.9
(22/6)                  Miss M.T. Dunwoody      Lab   12,679  30.6  -18.2
                        Mrs. E.A.R. Shenton     L Dem  6,040  14.6  - 4.0
                        M.H. Nattrass           UKIP     922*  2.2
                        R.A. Smith              GP       359*  0.9
                        D.A. Roberts            EDP      275*  0.7
                        T.F. Brick              MRLP     236*  0.6
                        M.J. Walklate           Ind C    217*  0.5
                        P.R. Thorogood          Ind      118*  0.3
                        Miss G.D. Garrett       Ind      113*  0.3
                                                       7,859  18.9

Notes:-

  2008:  Brick had changed his name from Nicholas Charles Elsworth
         Delves in order to contest the election.

         Thorogood was the candidate of the Cut Tax on Petrol and Diesel
         Party, which he had formed in March 2008.

         Garrett sought election as the candidate of 'Beauties for
         Britain'. She was the holder of the title Miss Great Britain at
         the time of the election and her campaign was organised by the
         promoters of the Miss Great Britain contest.

CANDIDATES' BIOGRAPHIES

Nick Delves, musician. Contested West Derbyshire in the 1997, 2001 and
 2005 general elections. 

Tamsin Dunwoody, small business adviser. Born 3rd September 1958 in
 Totnes, Devon. Daughter of Gwyneth Dunwoody, Member of Parliament for
 Exeter 1966-1970, Crewe 1974-1983 and Crewe and Nantwich 1983-2008.
 Educated at Grey Coat Hospital, the University of Kent, and South Bank
 University. Trained as a nurse and worked as an NHS manager at St
 Mary's, Whittington, Royal Northern and the Royal Free Hospitals in
 London. Joined the Labour Party in 1973. Member of the Welsh Assembly
 for Preseli Pembrokeshire from 2003 to 2007 when she was defeated.
 Deputy Minister for Economic Development and for Environment, Planning
 and the Countryside from 2005 to 2007. Divorced from Mark Kneafsey; two
 sons and three daughters.

Gemma Garrrett, glamour model. Born 1981 in Dundonald, County Antrim.
 Miss Ulster Sun for 1999. Barmaid for Dean Gaffney on "The Club", ITV,
 2003. Worked for Budweiser in promotions. Runner-up for Miss Great
 Britain 2007. Holds the title Miss Great Britain for 2008. Single.

Mike Nattrass, Member of the European Parliament. Born 14th December
 1945 in Leeds, Yorkshire (WR). Founder and senior partner of Nattrass
 Giles, fireplace manufacturers of Birmingham, 1980. Contested the
 Dudley West byelection of December 1994 for New Britain. Contested
 Solihull in the 1997 general election for the Referendum Party.
 Contested 1999 European Parliament election in West Midlands region as
 first place on the UK Independence Party list. Contested Sutton
 Coldfield in the 2001 general election. Member of the European
 Parliament for West Midlands region from 2004. Married to Joyce.

David Roberts, chemist. Born 1955. Educated in Manchester and at
 Manchester Metropolitan University. Contested Malpas ward, City of
 Chester council, 2007. Contested Broxton ward, Cheshire West and
 Chester council, 2008. Married to Sheila.

Elizabeth Shenton, voluntary worker with animal charities. Born 28th
 August 1964. Has worked for Royal Bank of Scotland and National
 Westminster bank. Former Director of RBS Group Fund Pension Board.
 Newcastle-under-Lyme borough councillor since 2006. Married to Michael
 Shenton.

Robert Smith, transport policy worker for Merseyside Town Planning
 department. Born 1984. Former North West regional co-ordinator for the
 Young Green Party. Single.

Paul Thorogood, journalist on The Sun. Born 1967. Educated at Alec Hunter
 Humanities College, Braintree. Has a degree in politics. Formerly worked
 for the Colchester Gazette. Established the 'Cut Tax on Petrol and
 Diesel Party' in March 2008. Married to Marie with one child.

Edward Timpson, Barrister with Nicholas Street Chambers. Born 1973 in
 Knutsford. Educated at Uppingham School and Durham University. Member of
 the Family Law Bar Association. Married to Julia Still with three
 children.

Mark Walklate, formerly employed in sales. Born 1976 in Stoke-on-Trent.
 Educated at King's Grove School, Crewe, South Cheshire College (BTEC in
 business and finance), and the University of Humberside (Business
 Studies degree). Contested Maw Green ward, Crewe and Nantwich borough
 council, for the Conservative Party in the 2006 and 2007 local
 elections.

On Fri, 23 May 2008 at 02:34:50, David Boothroyd 
 wrote in uk.politics.electoral :

>CREWE and NANTWICH BYELECTION RESULT

>Electorate:        71,963
>Turnout:           57.7%
>Total votes:       41,856
>Spoiled ballots:   67
>Total valid votes: 41,498

How come valid+spoiled votes doesn't equal the total votes figure?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

I'm looking forward to reading JNugent's denunciation of Edward
Timpson as an ambulance-chaser ;) What's sauce for the goose...

Alex

Alex Macfie wrote:

> I'm looking forward to reading JNugent's denunciation of Edward
> Timpson as an ambulance-chaser ;) What's sauce for the goose...

Only parties (or the party) whose main strategy for electoral success 
lies in keeping a close eye on the obituaries column deserves that epithet.

It doesn't apply to Labour or the Conservatives, and AFAICS, neither 
does it apply to UKIP.

In article
, Alex Macfie  wrote:
> I'm looking forward to reading JNugent's denunciation of Edward
> Timpson as an ambulance-chaser ;)

I do not understand this.  Timpson was selected *a year ago* in
readiness for the next parliamentary election in that constituency,
whenever that might be; and it wasn't him or his party who called this
by-election (before the previous incumbent had even been buried).  Who
has been ambulance (or hearse) chasing?

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

In article <+0Jzm5TAGoNIFw2q@blueyonder.co.uk>,
 Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 at 02:34:50, David Boothroyd 
>  wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
> 
> >CREWE and NANTWICH BYELECTION RESULT
> 
> >Electorate:        71,963
> >Turnout:           57.7%
> >Total votes:       41,856
> >Spoiled ballots:   67
> >Total valid votes: 41,498
> 
> How come valid+spoiled votes doesn't equal the total votes figure?

Because some went missing during the count. It happens quite
routinely, I'm afraid. Had the majority been small enough, there
would have been a recount to try to find them.

On Fri, 23 May 2008 at 20:25:54, David Boothroyd 
 wrote in uk.politics.electoral :

>In article <+0Jzm5TAGoNIFw2q@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 May 2008 at 02:34:50, David Boothroyd
>>  wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>>
>> >CREWE and NANTWICH BYELECTION RESULT
>>
>> >Electorate:        71,963
>> >Turnout:           57.7%
>> >Total votes:       41,856
>> >Spoiled ballots:   67
>> >Total valid votes: 41,498
>>
>> How come valid+spoiled votes doesn't equal the total votes figure?
>
>Because some went missing during the count. It happens quite
>routinely, I'm afraid. Had the majority been small enough, there
>would have been a recount to try to find them.

But even so, 291 missing votes sounds quite a lot.

What if one of the minor candidates was on 4.99%, where a recount might 
save them their £500 deposit?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 24 May, 07:40, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> But even so, 291 missing votes sounds quite a lot.
>
> What if one of the minor candidates was on 4.99%, where a recount might
> save them their £500 deposit?

The discrepancy of 291 votes is much larger than it is normally.  I
was a bit surprised that they didn't do a bundle check of some sort to
try to find them.  I don't think that votes were "lost", just that
they were not counted correctly.  It is easy to count 51 into a bundle
of 50, for example.

From memory, I think there was a discrepancy of c.30 in Ealing
Southall, and. c.20 in the first count in Croydon Central in 2005.

If a candidate had been very close to losing their deposit, there
would definitely have been a recount in such circumstances because of
the size of the discrepancy (unless of course the agent was too dim to
ask for one).

On 23 May, 16:45, John M Ward  wrote:
> In article
> , Alex Macfie  wrote:
>
> > I'm looking forward to reading JNugent's denunciation of Edward
> > Timpson as an ambulance-chaser ;)
>
> I do not understand this.  Timpson was selected *a year ago* in
> readiness for the next parliamentary election in that constituency,
> whenever that might be; and it wasn't him or his party who called this
> by-election (before the previous incumbent had even been buried).  Who
> has been ambulance (or hearse) chasing?
>
My point is that Nugent criticizes the Lib Dems for "ambulance
chasing" because they often do well when fighting by-elections (of
which one likely cause is the death of the sitting MP). This jibe is
really rather cheap and childish, since political parties are supposed
to contest elections, and try to win them, regardless of how the
vacancy arises. If he were consistent, then he would loudly condemn
his own party for fighting and winning a seat in a by-election caused
by the death of an MP from the opposing party. That he does not do so,
would seem to suggest that he is more interested in cheap point-
scoring than in making a serious criticism. The problem is that hardly
anyone actually understands his point -- it took me a while to realize
that he was actually being serious in saying that a party should be
condemned for *contesting elections*. He took that as my being
embarrassed by his claim that the LDs are "ambulance chasers" --- in
fact I was wondering what the hell his point was.

In so far as Nugent has a serious point in this, it seems to be that
he thinks there ought to be a gentlemen's agreement among the main
parties that in the event of a casual vacancy caused by a tragic
death, they stand aside for the dead ex-MP's party's new candidate.
Well, apart from being unrealistic, it doesn't seem very democratic
(and would be likely to result in by-elections caused by such events
being won by candidates not participating in the gentlemen's
agreement).

A more realistic proposition might be to introduce a formal rule that
an MP should be automatically replaced by someone from the same party
(as in party list systems). But it's still not democratic, unless we
decide to institutionalize the idea that an MP is elected as a party
representative first, and an individual second (opposite to current
constutitional theory). Also it would have to apply to all casual
vacancies -- there doesn't seem to be any intellectual case for
legally treating casual vacancies caused by death any differently from
those caused by resignation or disqualification.

Alex

On 23 May, 15:10, JNugent  wrote:
> Alex Macfie wrote:
> > I'm looking forward to reading JNugent's denunciation of Edward
> > Timpson as an ambulance-chaser ;) What's sauce for the goose...
>
> Only parties (or the party) whose main strategy for electoral success
> lies in keeping a close eye on the obituaries column deserves that epithet.
>

If there were any party that only ever had any success in by-elections
(and particularly those caused by death, and not, say, taking the
Chiltern Hundreds) and hardly anywhere else, then I would be most
surprised. But that is clearly not the case with any party currently
involved in UK politics.

Granted, the Lib Dems are particularly good at pulling resources
towards a particular local contest where there is not much else going
on. But these successes don't come out of nowhere --- generally there
has to have been some LD presence on the ground already when a by-
election is called (or is likely to have been called). And frankly it
doesn't make much difference what causes the vacancy --- the political
situation in the area and at the time are much more important. You
know this. So grow up.

Alex

> It doesn't apply to Labour or the Conservatives, and AFAICS, neither
> does it apply to UKIP.

Alex Macfie wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>> Alex Macfie wrote:

>>> I'm looking forward to reading JNugent's denunciation of Edward
>>> Timpson as an ambulance-chaser ;) What's sauce for the goose...

>> Only parties (or the party) whose main strategy for electoral success
>> lies in keeping a close eye on the obituaries column deserves that epithet.

> If there were any party that only ever had any success in by-elections
> (and particularly those caused by death, and not, say, taking the
> Chiltern Hundreds) and hardly anywhere else, then I would be most
> surprised. But that is clearly not the case with any party currently
> involved in UK politics

...apart from the Lib Dems.

Resignation of the sitting MP (as in Liverpool Edhe Hill in 1979) is a 
different matter. David Alton was right to contest that vacant seat (and 
I voted for him in it).

> Granted, the Lib Dems are particularly good at pulling resources
> towards a particular local contest where there is not much else going
> on

...and not very good at campaigning on little things like political 
issues, especially at general elections. Anything more than minor 
success they have had at GEs has been due to the advent of the SDP and 
(later) came on the coat-tails of Labour.

> But these successes don't come out of nowhere --- generally there
> has to have been some LD presence on the ground already when a by-
> election is called (or is likely to have been called). And frankly it
> doesn't make much difference what causes the vacancy --- the political
> situation in the area and at the time are much more important. You
> know this. So grow up.

I think it makes a HUGE difference what causes the by-election. 
Contesting the seat of a murdered MP ("doing a Belotti") is particularly 
reprehensible as it aids the murderers. You know that. So grow up.

On 24 May, 23:05, JNugent  wrote:
> Alex Macfie wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
> > If there were any party that only ever had any success in by-elections
> > (and particularly those caused by death, and not, say, taking the
> > Chiltern Hundreds) and hardly anywhere else, then I would be most
> > surprised. But that is clearly not the case with any party currently
> > involved in UK politics
>
> ...apart from the Lib Dems.

which is presumably why the Lib Dems have never had any success in
general elections except as a result of by-elections caused by tragic
deaths. Clearly the apparent fact that most sitting MPs for the Lib
Dems won their seats at general elections is an illusion.

>
> Resignation of the sitting MP (as in Liverpool Edhe Hill in 1979) is a
> different matter.

Actually that by-election was caused by the death of the sitting MP,
Arthur Irvine. If you're going to make claims relating to the moral
high ground in relation to contesting by-elections, you could at least
get your facts right.

> David Alton was right to contest that vacant seat (and
> I voted for him in it).
>

All candidates who choose to contest vacant seats are right to do so.
End of story.

> ...and not very good at campaigning on little things like political
> issues, especially at general elections.

so evidently the current tally of 64 MPs is just an illusion.

> Anything more than minor
> success they have had at GEs has been due to the advent of the SDP and
> (later) came on the coat-tails of Labour.
>

The SDP is now well recognized to have been a hindrance to the <centre
party> in the long term. Even the actual gains made by the SDP/Libs at
general elections in 1983 and 1987 seem to have been mainly Liberal-
type gains --- mostly either in traditionally Liberal-voting areas or
from Liberal-style local campaigning. Moreover, the LDs' recent
success has come despite, not because of, any clinging to Labour's
coat-tails (again, this is a widely held view, certainly within the
party) --- all the by-election gains in the last two parliaments have
been from Labour, as have most recent Lib Dem gains general election.

>
> I think it makes a HUGE difference what causes the by-election.
> Contesting the seat of a murdered MP ("doing a Belotti") is particularly
> reprehensible as it aids the murderers.

Do you *honestly* think that any part of the IRA's motive in murdering
Ian Gow was to change the colour of the parliamentary constituency of
Eastbourne on the country's political map? Do you honestly think the
IRA even cared --- when MPs elected for its political arm don't even
take up their seats on the basis that they don't recognize the
authority of the UK Parliament? Do you really think it mattered to the
IRA whether Eastbourne was Conservative, Lib Dem or Labour, when all
three parties supported Northern Ireland continuing to be a part of
the United Kingdom, and expressed absolute opposition to the IRA's
methods? If you do then you are even more of an idiot than I thought.
The IRA's target was Ian Gow. They did not care at all about his
replacement --- they just wanted Ian Gow out of the way. In any case,
holding a by-election in the normal way indicated that it was business
as usual --- the country was not going to change its procedures
because of a terrorist threat. To have done so would definitely have
aided the murderers.

And, as has been explained here many times before, the Lib Dems
already had a strong presence in Eastbourne, seeing it as at least a
medium-term Parliamentary target. To have failed to contest a
parliamentary by-election there would have seemed odd. And the party
would probably not have won it had it not been for already being
active there.

Alex

On Sat, 24 May 2008 at 15:52:18, Alex Macfie  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>which is presumably why the Lib Dems have never had any success in
>general elections except as a result of by-elections caused by tragic
>deaths.

As opposed to the happy kind?

Deaths by natural causes are certainly tragic to the MP's families & 
friends - but the context you used suggests un-natural deaths.
>
>> David Alton was right to contest that vacant seat (and
>> I voted for him in it).
>>
>All candidates who choose to contest vacant seats are right to do so.
>End of story.

It'd be more noteworthy if any of the main parties *didn't*.
>
>> ...and not very good at campaigning on little things like political
>> issues, especially at general elections.
>
>so evidently the current tally of 64 MPs is just an illusion.

One that may dissipate somewhat as tactical voting patterns change at 
the next GE...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 25 May, 09:34, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >so evidently the current tally of 64 MPs is just an illusion.
>
> One that may dissipate somewhat as tactical voting patterns change at
> the next GE...

I agree that there's less interest now in anti-Tory tactical voting
than there was, and Lib Dem MPs fighting against the Tories will have
to fight seriously to remain in place. But Lib Dems are now breathing
down the necks of many Labour MPs. The party's 7 (?) gains from Labour
in 2005 are just the start of a new trend.

Alex

Alex Macfie wrote:

> Actually that by-election was caused by the death of the sitting MP,
> Arthur Irvine. If you're going to make claims relating to the moral
> high ground in relation to contesting by-elections, you could at least
> get your facts right.

I see you know nothing about what was happening inside the local Labour 
Party at the time.

In article
,
   Alex Macfie  wrote:
> On 23 May, 16:45, John M Ward  wrote:
> > In article
> > ,
> > Alex Macfie  wrote:
> >
> > > I'm looking forward to reading JNugent's denunciation of Edward
> > > Timpson as an ambulance-chaser ;)
> >
> > I do not understand this.  Timpson was selected *a year ago* in
> > readiness for the next parliamentary election in that constituency,
> > whenever that might be; and it wasn't him or his party who called
> > this by-election (before the previous incumbent had even been
> > buried).  Who has been ambulance (or hearse) chasing?
>
> My point is that Nugent criticizes the Lib Dems for "ambulance
> chasing" because they often do well when fighting by-elections (of
> which one likely cause is the death of the sitting MP). This jibe is
> really rather cheap and childish, since political parties are supposed
> to contest elections, and try to win them, regardless of how the
> vacancy arises.

It seems to me more to do with who calls the by-election, when, and for
what reason.  It was the Labour party who called the election, before
the late Gwyneth had even been laid to rest.  They were the ones
"chasing the hearse", as I would probably term it.

> If he were consistent, then he would loudly condemn his own party for
> fighting and winning a seat in a by-election caused by the death of
> an MP from the opposing party.

Why?  It is to represent the people's wishes that a candidate should
stand, and it is abundantly clear from the result that the overwhelming
majority of those who were prepared to vote (and it was a high turnout)
*wanted* a Conservative, and a local one at that.  That's the prupose of
democracy.  If no-one but the Labour party (who had called the election)
had put up a candidate, they'd now have the dreadful Tamsin Dunwoody as
their MP.  Whom does that serve?

> That he does not do so, would seem to suggest that he is more
> interested in cheap point- scoring than in making a serious
> criticism.

No it does not.  I'd say that *you* are the one trying to manufacture
some peculiar way of making it look like that.  What's you axe to grind
on all this?  Did the candidate you favoured do badly, perhaps, and this
is sour grapes?

[The rest snipped as it is way off the beam]

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

On 25 May, 12:34, John M Ward  wrote:
>
> Why?  It is to represent the people's wishes that a candidate should
> stand, and it is abundantly clear from the result that the overwhelming
> majority of those who were prepared to vote (and it was a high turnout)
> *wanted* a Conservative, and a local one at that.

I completely agree with that, and I have never said otherwise.
Obviously, I'd rather my party's candidate had won, but that's
politics, and democracy. My point is that Nugent labels the Lib Dems
as "ambulance chasers" for contesting and winning by-elections, and
should therefore do the same with respect to his own party when it
wins by-elections, if he has any consistency in his position on such
matters.

> No it does not.  I'd say that *you* are the one trying to manufacture
> some peculiar way of making it look like that.

Not really. Like I said Nugent has, on this newsgroup, made the cheap
and silly "ambulance chaser" jibe about the Lib Dems on this
newsgroup, and that by the standards HE applies, the Tories are
"ambulance chasers" for contesting and winning this election. He
should be reminded of that.

>  What's you axe to grind
> on all this?

It's to expose Nugent's hypocrisy. As far as I'm concerned, the fact
that the Tories won Crewe & Nantwich is just politics in action. But
if the Lib Dems had won, *he* would have been revived his "ambulance-
chaser" jibe.

Alex

Alex Macfie wrote:

> John M Ward  wrote:

>> Why?  It is to represent the people's wishes that a candidate should
>> stand, and it is abundantly clear from the result that the overwhelming
>> majority of those who were prepared to vote (and it was a high turnout)
>> *wanted* a Conservative, and a local one at that.

> I completely agree with that, and I have never said otherwise.
> Obviously, I'd rather my party's candidate had won, but that's
> politics, and democracy. My point is that Nugent labels the Lib Dems
> as "ambulance chasers" for contesting and winning by-elections, and
> should therefore do the same with respect to his own party when it
> wins by-elections, if he has any consistency in his position on such
> matters.

That's a lie. I have never said that all LibDems are ambulance-chasers.

David Belotti certainly was one. There have been others.

>> No it does not.  I'd say that *you* are the one trying to manufacture
>> some peculiar way of making it look like that.

> Not really. Like I said Nugent has, on this newsgroup, made the cheap
> and silly "ambulance chaser" jibe about the Lib Dems on this
> newsgroup, and that by the standards HE applies, the Tories are
> "ambulance chasers" for contesting and winning this election. He
> should be reminded of that.

>>  What's you axe to grind
>> on all this?

> It's to expose Nugent's hypocrisy. As far as I'm concerned, the fact
> that the Tories won Crewe & Nantwich is just politics in action. But
> if the Lib Dems had won, *he* would have been revived his "ambulance-
> chaser" jibe.

I have not criticised Labour. The term applies only to those LibDems 
whose chance came about because of death. And particularly that 
half-forgotten one whose only chance came about because of an assassination.

On 25 May, 12:34, John M Ward  wrote:
>
> It seems to me more to do with who calls the by-election, when, and for
> what reason.  It was the Labour party who called the election, before
> the late Gwyneth had even been laid to rest.  They were the ones
> "chasing the hearse", as I would probably term it.

I don't think anyone was chasing any hearse. That's the whole point:
it doesn't come into the issue, because contesting elections is what
politics is about. I suspect that Labour called the by-election early
because they thought they'd be more likely to win with a quick
campaign, not giving the opposition time to organize. It didn't work.

Alex

On 25 May, 13:56, JNugent  wrote:
> Alex Macfie wrote:

>
> That's a lie. I have never said that all LibDems are ambulance-chasers.
>
> David Belotti certainly was one.

Then so's Edward Timpson.

But the reality is that contesting elections and seeking to win them
is what politics is about, irrespective of how the vacancy arose. And
that, quite frankly, is the end of the matter.

Alex

Alex Macfie wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>> Alex Macfie wrote:

>> That's a lie. I have never said that all LibDems are ambulance-chasers.
>> David Belotti certainly was one.

> Then so's Edward Timpson.

Er... no.

Neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party have ever raised 
winning by-elections on the death of the incumbents to the art-form (and 
main way forward) that the LibDems have.

On 25 May, 15:27, JNugent  wrote:
> Alex Macfie wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
> >> Alex Macfie wrote:
> >> That's a lie. I have never said that all LibDems are ambulance-chasers.
> >> David Belotti certainly was one.
> > Then so's Edward Timpson.
>
> Er... no.
>
> Neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party have ever raised
> winning by-elections on the death of the incumbents to the art-form (and
> main way forward) that the LibDems have.

Drop that. The Lib Dems win many more seats at all levels outside by-
elections than in them. Parliamentary by-elections don't happen very
often, and it would not be possible for any party to win them with any
regularity if it did not already have some sort of organization that
it had built up, enabling it to fight effective campaigns at elections
at any time and any level. You seem to be suggesting that the Lib Dems
are just a shell of a party, brought out during Parliamentary by-
elections and doing nothing at any other time. Such a party could not
possibly exist for any length of time.

And believe it or not, death is the most common cause of a casual
vacancy in Parliament.

Alex

On Sun, 25 May 2008 at 02:38:57, Alex Macfie  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :

>On 25 May, 09:34, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >so evidently the current tally of 64 MPs is just an illusion.
>>
>> One that may dissipate somewhat as tactical voting patterns change at
>> the next GE...
>
>I agree that there's less interest now in anti-Tory tactical voting
>than there was, and Lib Dem MPs fighting against the Tories will have
>to fight seriously to remain in place. But Lib Dems are now breathing
>down the necks of many Labour MPs. The party's 7 (?) gains from Labour
>in 2005 are just the start of a new trend.

But ISTM they'll lose out overall, as they'll probably lose more seats 
to the Tories (Cheltenham likely being one) than they'll gain from 
Labour.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Sun, 25 May 2008 at 11:34:11, John M Ward  wrote 
in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>Why?  It is to represent the people's wishes that a candidate should
>stand, and it is abundantly clear from the result that the overwhelming
>majority of those who were prepared to vote

Metaphorically, not literally, since the Tory vote share was under 50%.

> (and it was a high turnout)
>*wanted* a Conservative, and a local one at that.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Alex Macfie wrote:

> Not really. Like I said Nugent has, on this newsgroup, made the cheap
> and silly "ambulance chaser" jibe about the Lib Dems on this
> newsgroup, and that by the standards HE applies, the Tories are
> "ambulance chasers" for contesting and winning this election. He
> should be reminded of that.

I can't speak for Nugent but most people use the phrase "ambulance chasers" 
to refer to the way the Lib Dems sometimes begin the by-election campaign 
before the MP has even died.

In article ,
   Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 at 11:34:11, John M Ward 
> wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
> >
> >Why?  It is to represent the people's wishes that a candidate should
> >stand, and it is abundantly clear from the result that the
> >overwhelming majority of those who were prepared to vote
>
> Metaphorically, not literally, since the Tory vote share was under
> 50%.

Agreed, although it was very close to 50%, as it turned out.  I should
have written something more along the lines of "largest sgare of votes",
which was the considerable margin I had in mind.

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

In article ,
   Tim Roll-Pickering  wrote:
> Alex Macfie wrote:

> > Not really. Like I said Nugent has, on this newsgroup, made the
> > cheap and silly "ambulance chaser" jibe about the Lib Dems on this
> > newsgroup, and that by the standards HE applies, the Tories are
> > "ambulance chasers" for contesting and winning this election. He
> > should be reminded of that.

> I can't speak for Nugent but most people use the phrase "ambulance
> chasers" to refer to the way the Lib Dems sometimes begin the
> by-election campaign before the MP has even died. 

Ah, yes: an even worse manifestation of the same underlying concept.

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

On Sat, 24 May 2008, Alex Macfie wrote:

> In so far as Nugent has a serious point in this, it seems to be that
> he thinks there ought to be a gentlemen's agreement among the main
> parties that in the event of a casual vacancy caused by a tragic
> death, they stand aside for the dead ex-MP's party's new candidate.
> Well, apart from being unrealistic, it doesn't seem very democratic
> (and would be likely to result in by-elections caused by such events
> being won by candidates not participating in the gentlemen's
> agreement).

The problem is where do we stop? If a tragic death from a terrorist is
a case where the by-election isn't contested, what about a tragic death
in a car accident (David Penhaligon)? Or a tragic death from any illness.

> A more realistic proposition might be to introduce a formal rule that
> an MP should be automatically replaced by someone from the same party
> (as in party list systems). But it's still not democratic, unless we
> decide to institutionalize the idea that an MP is elected as a party
> representative first, and an individual second (opposite to current
> constutitional theory).

Indeed - we have an electoral system where MPs are elected as
individuals, not party representatives. If we institute the idea
that they are party representatives so can be replaced without election
by someone from the same party, a big bit of the argument used for the 
current electoral system falls down.

Matthew Huntbach

On Sun, 25 May 2008, JNugent wrote:
> Alex Macfie wrote:

>> I completely agree with that, and I have never said otherwise.
>> Obviously, I'd rather my party's candidate had won, but that's
>> politics, and democracy. My point is that Nugent labels the Lib Dems
>> as "ambulance chasers" for contesting and winning by-elections, and
>> should therefore do the same with respect to his own party when it
>> wins by-elections, if he has any consistency in his position on such
>> matters.

> That's a lie. I have never said that all LibDems are ambulance-chasers.
>
> David Belotti certainly was one. There have been others.

Eastbourne became a Liberal controlled council in 1973, and control
of the council since then shifted between Liberals and Conservatives.
As such it was always the focus of Liberal and Liberal Democrat
attention in Sussex, even more so than Lewes for example (won, but not
in a by election). It is wrong to suggest the Liberal Democrats took
advantage of the situation by working a constituency they previously
had no interest in. It was their prime target in Sussex throughout
the 1970s and 1980s.

Matthew Huntbach

On Wed, 28 May 2008 11:40:09 +0100, Matthew Huntbach
 wrote:

>Indeed - we have an electoral system where MPs are elected as
>individuals, not party representatives. 

In theory...

Matthew Huntbach wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2008, JNugent wrote:
>> Alex Macfie wrote:
> 
>>> I completely agree with that, and I have never said otherwise.
>>> Obviously, I'd rather my party's candidate had won, but that's
>>> politics, and democracy. My point is that Nugent labels the Lib Dems
>>> as "ambulance chasers" for contesting and winning by-elections, and
>>> should therefore do the same with respect to his own party when it
>>> wins by-elections, if he has any consistency in his position on such
>>> matters.
> 
>> That's a lie. I have never said that all LibDems are ambulance-chasers.
>>
>> David Belotti certainly was one. There have been others.
> 
> Eastbourne became a Liberal controlled council in 1973, and control
> of the council since then shifted between Liberals and Conservatives.
> As such it was always the focus of Liberal and Liberal Democrat
> attention in Sussex, even more so than Lewes for example (won, but not
> in a by election). It is wrong to suggest the Liberal Democrats took
> advantage of the situation by working a constituency they previously
> had no interest in. It was their prime target in Sussex throughout
> the 1970s and 1980s.
> 
> Matthew Huntbach

What has any of that to do with the brutal murder of Ian Gow (a man 
worth ten of Belotti or anyone similar)?

On 25 May, 20:10, "Tim Roll-Pickering" 
wrote:

> I can't speak for Nugent but most people use the phrase "ambulance chasers"
> to refer to the way the Lib Dems sometimes begin the by-election campaign
> before the MP has even died.

Do you have any evidence that this actually happens? Littleborough &
Saddleworth is sometimes cited as an example, but the Lib Dems already
had a strong presence in that area (and still do) and would have been
putting a lot of effort into campaigning there whether or not there
were a by-election.

Can you (or anyone else) give me an example of the Lib Dems starting a
by-election campaign in a seat *in which they had little or no
previous interest* before the MP had expired?

Alex

On Wed, 28 May 2008, JNugent wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 May 2008, JNugent wrote:

>>> That's a lie. I have never said that all LibDems are ambulance-chasers.
>>> 
>>> David Belotti certainly was one. There have been others.

>> Eastbourne became a Liberal controlled council in 1973, and control
>> of the council since then shifted between Liberals and Conservatives.
>> As such it was always the focus of Liberal and Liberal Democrat
>> attention in Sussex, even more so than Lewes for example (won, but not
>> in a by election). It is wrong to suggest the Liberal Democrats took
>> advantage of the situation by working a constituency they previously
>> had no interest in. It was their prime target in Sussex throughout
>> the 1970s and 1980s.

> What has any of that to do with the brutal murder of Ian Gow (a man worth ten 
> of Belotti or anyone similar)?

I thought I had made it clear - that Liberal Democrat campaigning in this
constituency was a long term matter and not a short term matter inspired
by a by-election coming up in it.

In another message I have asked that if we establish the principle that a
by-election is not contested due to tragic circumstances causing it,
where do we draw the line as to what counts as "tragic circumstances"?
And if Ian Gow was such a good person as you suggest, might it not be 
the case that he was winning the constituency not because of his party
label but because of he he was perosnally? In which case, the grounds for
automatic replacement of him by someone who merely shares the same party
label are surely lessened.

Surely we have to leave it to the people. If they felt the Liberal
Democrats had acted reprehensibly here, they would have been put off
voting for them. If they felt the right thing to do was to replace Ian
Gow by another Conservative, then they would have voted to do so.
I think we can see in the Crewe and Nantwich result that reprehensible
campaign does get punished by the electorate.

Matthew Huntbach

On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 00:36:54, Alex Macfie  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>Can you (or anyone else) give me an example of the Lib Dems starting a
>by-election campaign in a seat *in which they had little or no
>previous interest* before the MP had expired?

I don't know - what caused the Southwark by-election at which Simon 
Hughes won from absolutely nowhere with a mind-boggling swing?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 29 May, 18:25, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 00:36:54, Alex Macfie 
> wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>
>
> >Can you (or anyone else) give me an example of the Lib Dems starting a
> >by-election campaign in a seat *in which they had little or no
> >previous interest* before the MP had expired?
>
> I don't know - what caused the Southwark by-election at which Simon
> Hughes won from absolutely nowhere with a mind-boggling swing?

The resignation of Robert Mellish MP in protest at the confirmation of
Peter Tatchell as the Labour candidate.

Are you sure you want to bring this topic up?

Alex

Paul Hyett wrote:

> Alex Macfie  wrote in uk.politics.electoral :

>> Can you (or anyone else) give me an example of the Lib Dems starting a
>> by-election campaign in a seat *in which they had little or no
>> previous interest* before the MP had expired?

> I don't know - what caused the Southwark by-election at which Simon 
> Hughes won from absolutely nowhere with a mind-boggling swing?

That was the resignation of trad-Labour (and one-time Whip) Bob Mellish 
(in disgust at Militant entryism in the locat party), wasn't it?

There was a very long delay between the resignation and the election, 
IIRC - possibly because Mellish couldn't stand Tatchell and still had 
the ear of the partyt's leaders (and used his influence to delay the 
writ being moved).

On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 14:27:56, Alex Macfie  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>>
>> >Can you (or anyone else) give me an example of the Lib Dems starting a
>> >by-election campaign in a seat *in which they had little or no
>> >previous interest* before the MP had expired?
>>
>> I don't know - what caused the Southwark by-election at which Simon
>> Hughes won from absolutely nowhere with a mind-boggling swing?
>
>The resignation of Robert Mellish MP in protest at the confirmation of
>Peter Tatchell as the Labour candidate.
>
>Are you sure you want to bring this topic up?

Well, any mention of Tatchell makes me want to bring *something* up...

But why, if Mellish was already the MP, would they want to replace him 
with someone else?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 23:24:42, JNugent  wrote in 
uk.politics.electoral :

>Paul Hyett wrote:
>
>> Alex Macfie  wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>>> Can you (or anyone else) give me an example of the Lib Dems starting a
>>> by-election campaign in a seat *in which they had little or no
>>> previous interest* before the MP had expired?
>
>> I don't know - what caused the Southwark by-election at which Simon 
>>Hughes won from absolutely nowhere with a mind-boggling swing?
>
>That was the resignation of trad-Labour (and one-time Whip) Bob Mellish 
>(in disgust at Militant entryism in the locat party), wasn't it?

Do you think the same sort of thing will happen again, if as seems 
likely, Labour lose the next GE?
>
>There was a very long delay between the resignation and the election, 
>IIRC - possibly because Mellish couldn't stand Tatchell

Join the queue! :)
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Fri, 30 May 2008, Paul Hyett wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 14:27:56, Alex Macfie  wrote 
> in uk.politics.electoral :

>>> >Can you (or anyone else) give me an example of the Lib Dems starting a
>>> >by-election campaign in a seat *in which they had little or no
>>> >previous interest* before the MP had expired?
>>> 
>>> I don't know - what caused the Southwark by-election at which Simon
>>> Hughes won from absolutely nowhere with a mind-boggling swing?

>> The resignation of Robert Mellish MP in protest at the confirmation of
>> Peter Tatchell as the Labour candidate.
>> 
>> Are you sure you want to bring this topic up?

> Well, any mention of Tatchell makes me want to bring *something* up...
>
> But why, if Mellish was already the MP, would they want to replace him with 
> someone else?

Mellish had already announced that he would not stand again in the
next general election. This was due to having taken up a post with the
London Docklands Development Corporation, and because of internal disputes
in his local Labour Party. He spent a long time (i.e. years, not months)
threatening to resign as an MP before he finally did, giving the Liberals 
opportunity to get quietly working in the constituency. The constituency
was seen as having similar characteristics to Liverpool Edge Hill, the
unexpected by-election gain in 1979, and nearby Tower Hamlets where the
Liberals had had recent local government success. These characteristics
were a weak and divided local Labour Party which had atrophied due to
having gone unchallenged for years, and a population which had reason
to dislike Labour due to its poor recent record in local government.
The work had already started before the selection of a controversial
Labour PPC who was disavowed by the national leader of the Labour Party.
The weakness of the Labour Party locally was shown by its failure
even to notice the Liberal activity as it happened under their noses,
and the media followed this up accordingly, right up to the last week of
the campaign noting this as a "two-horse race" between the official Labour
candidate and an Independent Labour canddiate who had Mellish's backing.
For months before Liberal activists had been passed the word that
something big was happening here and it was worth going along to help,
it was weird to find, even when the Liberal posters started going up in
big numbers, that the media reported nothing of it and generally wrote off 
the Liberal candidate as just another no-hoper. Sometimes it pays to
be written up as the main challenger from the start, sometimes it pays
for attention to be diverted - Bermondsey was the biggest ever example
of the latter.

Matthew Huntbach

Paul Hyett wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 23:24:42, JNugent  wrote in 
> uk.politics.electoral :
> 
>> Paul Hyett wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Macfie  wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>>
>>>> Can you (or anyone else) give me an example of the Lib Dems starting a
>>>> by-election campaign in a seat *in which they had little or no
>>>> previous interest* before the MP had expired?
>>
>>> I don't know - what caused the Southwark by-election at which Simon 
>>> Hughes won from absolutely nowhere with a mind-boggling swing?
>>
>> That was the resignation of trad-Labour (and one-time Whip) Bob 
>> Mellish (in disgust at Militant entryism in the locat party), wasn't it?
> 
> Do you think the same sort of thing will happen again, if as seems 
> likely, Labour lose the next GE?
>>
>> There was a very long delay between the resignation and the election, 
>> IIRC - possibly because Mellish couldn't stand Tatchell
> 
> Join the queue! :)

I've moderated my view of Tatchell over the intervening years. He 
himself is more moderate than he used to be. OK, make that "less 
immoderate".