For some reason RBKC held this byelection on a Wednesday and counted it 
the same night:

Caruana  Carol          Liberal Democrat Focus Team     634 
Bentayeb Samia          Conservative Party              330 
Akhrif Amir             The Labour Party Candidate      300 
Ebrahimi-Fardouee Melan Green Party                      77 
Chagas Elsa             Independent                      10

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 at 19:40:57, rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in 
uk.politics.electoral :

>For some reason RBKC held this byelection on a Wednesday and counted it
>the same night:
>
>Caruana  Carol          Liberal Democrat Focus Team     634
>Bentayeb Samia          Conservative Party              330
>Akhrif Amir             The Labour Party Candidate      300
>Ebrahimi-Fardouee Melan Green Party                      77
>Chagas Elsa             Independent                      10
>
Surprisingly clear-cut result, given it was their first ever win there.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

In article <iUah$7F7JAaKFwny@blueyonder.co.uk>,
   Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 at 19:40:57, rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote
> in uk.politics.electoral :

> >For some reason RBKC held this byelection on a Wednesday and counted
> >it the same night:
> >
> >Caruana  Carol          Liberal Democrat Focus Team     634
> >Bentayeb Samia          Conservative Party              330
> >Akhrif Amir             The Labour Party Candidate      300
> >Ebrahimi-Fardouee Melan Green Party                      77
> >Chagas Elsa             Independent                      10

> Surprisingly clear-cut result, given it was their first ever win there.

Yes; although the numbers aren't exactly large.  It is possibly a
consequence of the MPs' expenses row, which is still fairly fresh in
voters' minds (though fading to an extent), from which the LibDems emerged
less damaged than the Conservatives, who in turn were less harmed than
Labour, as other results, polls etc have demonstrated.

Personally, I think that having at least one Liberal Democrat on that
council is no bad thing on principle, though I don't expect this to be the
beginning of a large-scale influx of LibDems, which would be inappropriate
in that council area.

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

Paul Hyett wrote:

> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in uk.politics.electoral :

>> For some reason RBKC held this byelection on a Wednesday and counted it
>> the same night:

>> Caruana  Carol          Liberal Democrat Focus Team     634
>> Bentayeb Samia          Conservative Party              330
>> Akhrif Amir             The Labour Party Candidate      300
>> Ebrahimi-Fardouee Melan Green Party                      77
>> Chagas Elsa             Independent                      10

> Surprisingly clear-cut result, given it was their first ever win there.

And perhaps shades of the result in the Cheltenham Parliamentary seat in 1992?

The LibDims don't mind *why* people vote for them, as long as they vote that 
way. And their doorstep campaigning often proves that they will say mutually 
exclusive things to neighbouring voters who compare notes afterwards.

John M Ward wrote:

> In article <iUah$7F7JAaKFwny@blueyonder.co.uk>,
>    Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 at 19:40:57, rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote
>> in uk.politics.electoral :
> 
>>> For some reason RBKC held this byelection on a Wednesday and counted
>>> it the same night:
>>>
>>> Caruana  Carol          Liberal Democrat Focus Team     634
>>> Bentayeb Samia          Conservative Party              330
>>> Akhrif Amir             The Labour Party Candidate      300
>>> Ebrahimi-Fardouee Melan Green Party                      77
>>> Chagas Elsa             Independent                      10
> 
>> Surprisingly clear-cut result, given it was their first ever win there.
> 
> Yes; although the numbers aren't exactly large.  It is possibly a
> consequence of the MPs' expenses row, which is still fairly fresh in
> voters' minds (though fading to an extent), from which the LibDems emerged
> less damaged than the Conservatives, who in turn were less harmed than
> Labour, as other results, polls etc have demonstrated.
> 
> Personally, I think that having at least one Liberal Democrat on that
> council is no bad thing on principle, though I don't expect this to be the
> beginning of a large-scale influx of LibDems, which would be inappropriate
> in that council area.

Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the 
Conservative and Labour candidates).

I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style campaign on 
the part of the LibDims.

Protestations and the odd "Would *we* do that, Guv?" won't suffice (mainly 
because I know what happened in Cheltenham).

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 at 21:20:06, JNugent  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>>>>
>>>> Caruana  Carol          Liberal Democrat Focus Team     634
>>>> Bentayeb Samia          Conservative Party              330
>>>> Akhrif Amir             The Labour Party Candidate      300
>>>> Ebrahimi-Fardouee Melan Green Party                      77
>>>> Chagas Elsa             Independent                      10
>>
>>> Surprisingly clear-cut result, given it was their first ever win 
>>>there.
>
>Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the 
>Conservative and Labour candidates).

Well spotted. It look likes parties still haven't learned not to try & 
shoehorn inappropriate candidates - for an inner London ward, Colville 
still retains a mainly white electorate.
>
>I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style 
>campaign on the part of the LibDims.
>
>Protestations and the odd "Would *we* do that, Guv?" won't suffice 
>(mainly because I know what happened in Cheltenham).

Except that the LD's *didn't* play on John Taylor's colour - it was 
internal Tory politics that was the most divisive issue in that contest.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 at 21:17:05, JNugent  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>>> Caruana  Carol          Liberal Democrat Focus Team     634
>>> Bentayeb Samia          Conservative Party              330
>>> Akhrif Amir             The Labour Party Candidate      300
>>> Ebrahimi-Fardouee Melan Green Party                      77
>>> Chagas Elsa             Independent                      10
>
>> Surprisingly clear-cut result, given it was their first ever win there.
>
>And perhaps shades of the result in the Cheltenham Parliamentary seat in 1992?

A number of misconceptions seem to have built up over the years about 
that contest.

Yes, a small minority brought up the race issue(*) - but the main 
factors actually were :

1. The long-standing & popular Tory MP Charles Irving stepped down, with 
the loss of his large personal vote.

2. The LD's were already in control of the borough council, so it's not 
as if their vote appeared from nowhere.

(*) In any case, most of Cheltenham's immigrants were, and are, Asian - 
and have assimilated well.
>
>The LibDims don't mind *why* people vote for them, as long as they vote 
>that way. And their doorstep campaigning often proves that they will 
>say mutually exclusive things to neighbouring voters who compare notes 
>afterwards.

And of course, no other party would dream of doing such things... :p
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

JNugent  wrote:
> Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the
> Conservative and Labour candidates).
>
> I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style campaign on
> the part of the LibDims.

With no evidence whatsoever, you make accusations of racism. You are a
nasty piece of work, JNugent.
--
Henry

Henry Potts wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>> Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the
>> Conservative and Labour candidates).

>> I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style campaign on
>> the part of the LibDims.

> With no evidence whatsoever, you make accusations of racism. You are a
> nasty piece of work, JNugent.

Not accusations, but suggestions.

English comprehension and nuance isn't your long suit, eh?

Well, either that or the suggestion has hit a very raw nerve.

I am a very realistic observer of the political scene. I *know* that the 
LibDems devoted more resources in their campaign against the Conservative 
candidate in Cheltenham in 1992 than they would have agaisnt a white 
Conservative candidate. They were taking advantage of the situation. Th ey 
always try to. Don't even think of trying to maintain that that was not a 
racist (and, to some extent, rational) decision.

The UK Parliament was the poorer for not containing John Taylor, and 
certainly no better for the presence of Nigel Jones.

What was it the political pundits said of Harold McMillan? Ah, yes...

"...greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his friends for his 
life".

That was some years before Nigel Jones got elected, of course.

On Jul 24, 5:21 pm, JNugent  wrote:
> Henry Potts wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
> >> Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the
> >> Conservative and Labour candidates).
> >> I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style campaign on
> >> the part of the LibDims.
> > With no evidence whatsoever, you make accusations of racism. You are a
> > nasty piece of work, JNugent.
>
> Not accusations, but suggestions.
>
> English comprehension and nuance isn't your long suit, eh?

Bollocks. Everyone can read what you said. That's an accusation, not a
suggestion.

As I said, a nasty piece of work, and now you're trying to wriggle out
of your crass behaviour.
--
Henry

Henry Potts wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>> Henry Potts wrote:
>>> JNugent  wrote:

>>>> Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the
>>>> Conservative and Labour candidates).
>>>> I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style campaign on
>>>> the part of the LibDims.

>>> With no evidence whatsoever, you make accusations of racism. You are a
>>> nasty piece of work, JNugent.

>> Not accusations, but suggestions.
>> English comprehension and nuance isn't your long suit, eh?

> Bollocks.

Is that standard LibDim terminology and discourse these days?

Your party really is sliding down the drain, eh? I can remember the days when 
Liberals (not quite the same thing, of course)( pridedc themselves on the 
qiuality of their debating skills.

O tempora, O mores!

> Everyone can read what you said.

But obviously, not everyone can understand it.

> That's an accusation, not a suggestion.

As I said, just above.

> As I said, a nasty piece of work, and now you're trying to wriggle out
> of your crass behaviour.

In general, the Liberal Party (the real Liberal Party) was not a racist 
party. No more than any other random group. But the LibDims are a different 
kettle of fish. Whilst they don't like having attention drawn to it, they 
will adopt *any* opportunist position in order to garner more votes.

So sorry for telling the truth about your party.

It does more damage than your telling lies about me ever could.

But you already knew that.

Mind you, I am anxious about one thing...

If ever any member of my family is injured and an ambulance is sent to render 
assistance, will you please assure me that you won't try to obstruct it? I 
know it's apparently LibDim policy, but please, have some compassion.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 at 17:21:51, JNugent  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>> With no evidence whatsoever, you make accusations of racism. You are a
>> nasty piece of work, JNugent.
>
>Not accusations, but suggestions.
>
>English comprehension and nuance isn't your long suit, eh?
>
>Well, either that or the suggestion has hit a very raw nerve.
>
>I am a very realistic observer of the political scene. I *know* that 
>the LibDems devoted more resources in their campaign against the 
>Conservative candidate in Cheltenham in 1992 than they would have 
>agaisnt a white Conservative candidate.

It was one of their top target seats, so naturally they targeted it hard 
- whether they tried even harder than they would have done against a 
different Tory candidate is unprovable though.
>
>The UK Parliament was the poorer for not containing John Taylor,

>and certainly no better for the presence of Nigel Jones.

I can't argue with *that*.
>
>That was some years before Nigel Jones got elected, of course.

At least his successor is rather more competent - though, due to 
boundary changes, that might not save him next time.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 23 July, 16:20, JNugent  wrote:
>
> Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the
> Conservative and Labour candidates).
>
> I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style campaign on
> the part of the LibDims.

The same Cheltenham that the Lib Dems held onto with an increased
majority (in line with the national trend) in the following general
election, when race wasn't an issue?

Alex

Alex Macfie wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>> Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the
>> Conservative and Labour candidates).
>> I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style campaign on
>> the part of the LibDims.

> The same Cheltenham that the Lib Dems held onto with an increased
> majority (in line with the national trend) in the following general
> election, when race wasn't an issue?

I was talking about 1992, not subsequent alections.

I don't disagree that once LibDims are ensconced, it's often harder to 
dislodge them than it is with others.

You haven't convinced me of the campaign's bona fides any more than the 
others did, especially since your post is just another variation on the tired 
old theme: "Holier than ye".

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 at 19:43:20, JNugent  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :

>Alex Macfie wrote:
>
>> JNugent  wrote:
>
>>> Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the
>>> Conservative and Labour candidates).
>>> I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style 
>>>campaign on
>>> the part of the LibDims.
>
>> The same Cheltenham that the Lib Dems held onto with an increased
>> majority (in line with the national trend) in the following general
>> election, when race wasn't an issue?
>
>I was talking about 1992, not subsequent alections.
>
>I don't disagree that once LibDims are ensconced, it's often harder to 
>dislodge them than it is with others.
>
>You haven't convinced me of the campaign's bona fides any more than the 
>others did

Is there anything that *would*?

I'm no fan of the LD's, but I thought I gave two decent reasons why they 
would have won here in 1992, regardless of race.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>> Alex Macfie wrote:
>>> JNugent  wrote:

>>>> Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the
>>>> Conservative and Labour candidates).

>>>> I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style 
>>>> campaign on the part of the LibDims.

>>> The same Cheltenham that the Lib Dems held onto with an increased
>>> majority (in line with the national trend) in the following general
>>> election, when race wasn't an issue?

>> I was talking about 1992, not subsequent alections.
>> I don't disagree that once LibDims are ensconced, it's often harder to 
>> dislodge them than it is with others.
>> You haven't convinced me of the campaign's bona fides any more than 
>> the others did

> Is there anything that *would*?

If you mean Cheltenham 1992, nothing is likely change my mind on that because 
I know what I know (which means I know what I was told at the time). 
Certainly, faux-offended idignity on the part of LD posters won't change my mind.

> I'm no fan of the LD's, but I thought I gave two decent reasons why they 
> would have won here in 1992, regardless of race.

Your reasons might be sound, but they don't change the nature of the campaign 
or the intensity of it, or the things I was told at the time. I fully accept 
that your mileage may vary on that.

As to this more recent by-election, I have only said that I'd take some 
convincing. I have not said that I know any more about the campaign than the 
result; I'm basing my guess (and yes, it is only a guess) on Libdem form.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 at 18:59:03, JNugent  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :

>>> You haven't convinced me of the campaign's bona fides any more than 
>>>the others did
>
>> Is there anything that *would*?
>
>If you mean Cheltenham 1992, nothing is likely change my mind on that 
>because I know what I know (which means I know what I was told at the 
>time). Certainly, faux-offended idignity on the part of LD posters 
>won't change my mind.

The impression I got was more of Tory voters sitting on their hands, 
rather than switching to the LD's
>
>> I'm no fan of the LD's, but I thought I gave two decent reasons why 
>>they  would have won here in 1992, regardless of race.
>
>Your reasons might be sound, but they don't change the nature of the 
>campaign or the intensity of it, or the things I was told at the time. 
>I fully accept that your mileage may vary on that.

Http://www.caribvoice.org/Profiles/lordjohntaylor.html

At least part of the opposition to John Taylor was due to him being a 
non-local candidate parachuted in, though.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 27 July, 14:43, JNugent  wrote:
> Alex Macfie wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
> >> Look at the *names* of the candidates (partticularly the names of the
> >> Conservative and Labour candidates).
> >> I'd take some convincing that this wasn't a 1992 Cheltenham style campaign on
> >> the part of the LibDims.
> > The same Cheltenham that the Lib Dems held onto with an increased
> > majority (in line with the national trend) in the following general
> > election, when race wasn't an issue?
>
> I was talking about 1992, not subsequent alections.
>

If the lib Dems had won in 1992 primarily because of the Tory
candidate's ethnicity, you would expect a 'correction' at the
following election, when the Tory candidate was white. An against-the-
grain swing (which Cheltenham in 1992 was not) at a general election
caused by a negative personal vote is usually corrected at the
subsequent election when the factor causing the swing is eliminated
and has been forgotten about. And it would be especially true in this
case --- any usually Tory voter who had voted Lib Dem to get an ethnic-
minority Tory candidate out is hardly going to be a natural Lib Dem
voter, and would rush back to the Tories as soon as a more "suitable"
candidate is selected.

Alex