Oldham East and Saddleworth

Politics can be frustrating, particularly as you become more directly involved. It is true in life, but particularly true in politics, that everyone has their own agenda: Your opponents want to win, the media wants to sell their product (and advertising time/space) and commentators and pundits want to be heard. This fact means that getting a message across can be a challenge at the best of times. Actions and statements are twisted, misrepresented or misinterpreted and it can be difficult to get the truth across. Add to that a lazy electorate (not everyone, of course, but enough people) who don't make an effort to cut through all the rubbish to form a fully informed opinion and you've got one hell of a frustrating melting pot.

Of course, that challenge is all part of the fun!

On Thursday, the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth went to the polls in the first parliamentary by-election since the general election last year. The profile of this event was further increased after the winner last May, Phil Woolas, was found to have deliberately misled the electorate in his campaign literature. It was touted as everything from a test of coalition cohesion, to a measure of Ed Milliband's leadership. Some individuals and news organisations are already trying to draw sweeping conclusions for future elections based on this result but while there is an element of truth to the rhetoric, the reality is that the election is only a snap-shot of one constituency based on the very specific conditions of this election alone and therefore, what it tells us about any future election is very limited. Based purely on the outcome with no supporting canvass or polling data, even what it tells us about the views of the electorate in OES are limited!

The outcome was as follows:

Debbie Abrahams (Lab) 14,718 (42.14%, +10.27%)
Elwyn Watkins (LD) 11,160 (31.95%, +0.32%)
Kashif Ali (C) 4,481 (12.83%, -13.62%)
Paul Nuttall (UKIP) 2,029 (5.81%, +1.95%)
Derek Adams (BNP) 1,560 (4.47%, -1.25%)
Peter Allen (Green) 530 (1.52%)
The Flying Brick (Loony) 145 (0.42%)
Stephen Morris (Eng Dem) 144 (0.41%)
Loz Kaye (Pirate) 96 (0.27%)
David Bishop (Bus-Pass Elvis) 67 (0.19%)

Comparing these figures to those of the May election, Debbie Abrahams, the Labour candidate, was the only candidate to increase the actual number of votes (slightly) and also increase her vote share. Elwyn Watkins dropped almost 3,000 votes for the Liberal Democrats but increased his vote share slightly, while Conservative, Kashif Ali, dropped a substantial 7,200 votes and lost a significant share of the votes.

Some have been quick to suggest that those who voted Conservative last year, voted Labour instead. I personally find it unlikely that Conservative voters shifted directly to Labour, which makes me wonder if the reality is that Elwyn lost some of support to Labour but gained support from people who previously voted Conservative. However, I find even this possibility a stretch. Those Conservative supporters who are most likely to be disillusioned at the moment are the hard right as their party has had to take a more central position in order to compromise with the Lib Dems. It's conceivable that there was a tactical vote - that Conservative voters recognised that their best chance to have a coalition MP was to vote Lib Dem - but I doubt this factor has influenced the voters enough to cause Ali to lose over 7,000 votes.

Another common perception is that this result represents a swing from Lib Dem to Labour. This is certainly more plausible as, for some time, the Liberal Democrat party has been a protest vote for disaffected Labour and Tory supporters. However, like all political parties, Lib Dems lean left or right. Left-leaning Lib Dems, and ex-Labour supporters will surely be irate about the coalition and the tuition fees debacle has upset many voters. Having said that, I wonder how much influence these two factors have had on the result. Right-leaning Lib Dems and moderates will almost certainly be supportive of the party's achievements in government and even those who previously voted Lib Dem, having switched support from Labour, might be completely disillusioned, rather than switch support back, particularly in the light of Phil Woolas' shame.

Therefore, it is my belief that ultimately the vote in Oldham East and Saddleworth hasn't changed that much. Although I am certain that some people have voted differently to how they voted in the general election, I believe that the most significant factor that has influenced this election is the turnout. I believe Labour successfully located and mobilised their vote (picking up some ex-Lib Dem votes along the way) while a large proportion of Conservative voters stayed home. The Lib Dem vote is, unfortunately, renowned as being somewhat unstable (some might say 'fickle') and it would seem enough voters either stayed at home or shifted their vote Labour's way, to result in a Labour win.

If that's the case, what does it mean for the Council elections later this year? Is this a good result for us local Lib Dems, or a bad one? Firstly, it seems to suggest that not much has changed in real terms. Where Labour are strongest, elections might be theirs to lose and the win in OES (particularly if it is reinforced with more by-election victories) might make Labour complacent. In areas where the party takes their electorate for granted, there could be some shocks but I'm not going to hold my breath. Ed Miliband's leadership is very weak, but fortunately for the Labour party, it is easier to be in opposition than in government because you only have to tell people what they want to hear and, I fear, that's exactly what Miliband is doing. The challenge for Lib Dems everywhere will likely be twofold: one, to convince those who voted Lib Dem in the past to continue to do so, and two, to find that support and transfer it to the ballot box. But then again, hasn't that always been the case?

Regardless of what the OES result means (or not), I'd like to extend my congratulations to the Lib Dem team out there for a well-fought campaign. It is deeply disappointing that Elwyn Watkins didn't win - he deserved it after the dirty campaign Labour ran last May and, judging by his tenacity and determination to see the right thing done, he would've made a great MP. Next time, maybe.

Who's Fault is it Anyway?

No campaigning for me yesterday. I had other things to do (more on that subject later). However, I was out on Saturday afternoon posting letters around our ward. It was a gorgeous, warm, sunny day, which meant that a lot of folks were out and about or sitting in their gardens. The sounds of the Grand National rolled out of open doors and windows and kids were kicking footballs in the streets. On days like that it's a great opportunity to catch views and responses because, for once, people are not locked away indoors!

A couple of things were clear. Firstly, the level of awareness of the pending election is very high, which is great because I've campaigned in by-elections when no-one even knew there was an election due. Mind you... you would have to be living under a rock to not know about this one! The second thing that's clear is that there exists a group of people who insist on blaming it all on the immigrants... whatever 'it' is!

People are entitled to their opinion but this is something that thoroughly irritates me. It is a position that shows an utter lack of insight and a determination to bury one's head most firmly in the sand. There is no denying that immigration is an important issue; an incoming population can have both positive and negative effects on a society, but it is somewhat ridiculous to blame all society's problems on immigration - as some people seem so bent on doing.

Sometimes, immigration is undoubtedly a good thing. It allows us to employ the best and brightest and specialists in their chosen field. We should also welcome overseas students who come here to learn, because as well as skills and knowledge, they also gain an understanding of our society and culture. Many industries also rely on overseas workers for seasonal work like fruit picking, because it's something British workers are rarely willing to do. This is very good for business and for the economy. However, immigration can simultaneously lead to a number of problems, not least a loss of identity.

The human being is a social creature. We identify ourselves by groups that we belong to or are excluded from. How often have you asked someone where they were born or what they do for a living? How old are you? Are you a cat or a dog person? What's your favourite colour? Wheelchair-bound people are constantly and frustratingly defined by the fact that they can't walk rather than by their views or experiences; it isn't that unusual to hear people talk about 'seeing beyond the chair'. We seek out people who are like us, with whom we have a common ground, because it makes us feel comfortable and safe; we like to belong. Mass immigration, I believe, scares people because it threatens that feeling of safety and belonging. It threatens identity. This is particularly true because minority populations also want to belong so they often seek each other out too. Minority communities thrive within larger towns and cities. Is there a Jewish quarter in your town? Does your city have a 'China Town'? In the case of religious beliefs, there is the additional consideration that communities spring up in places where there is a church, temple or mosque, simply because it's convenient for the population that worships there. (It's really no different from someone moving to be nearer work, or a family moving to be near a good school.) The unfortunate side-effect of this is that 'native' people begin to feel like the minority, even when they aren't. Additional problems arise when the national sense of identity begins to erode too.

The British are a nation battered by negative phrases like 'Broken Britain', 'Yob Culture' and 'Brits Abroad'. We are losing what it means to be British and more specifically what it means to be English. The Scottish, Irish and Welsh are fortunate to each have clear national and cultural identities. They are nations within a nation that each have a proud heritage and cultural quirks that the majority both acknowledge and, in many cases, adopt. They are people that are proud of who they are. But what of the English? Bangers and mash and fish and chips have given way to Chinese Take-out and Curry Mile. Tea and Crumpets has lost out to Starbucks and Costa-lotta Coffee. Not that those things really matter - I love take out and curry and drink tea or coffee depending on my mood - but when people don't understand what makes them culturally unique, they are even more inclined to feel threatened by other groups. When you feel like you have nothing in common with your neighbour who looks like you, talks like you, has a similar upbringing, family and social status to you, of course you will be concerned by the fifteen people in the next street who - to you - all seem to be alike. It's because you feel alone.

Of course, none of this is the fault of immigration but people who are not like us are an easy target. It takes so much less energy to point the finger at someone with brown skin or a different accent than it does to acknowledge and understand the real sources of society's problems. The person who lives down the street popping out one kid after the next so they can live at home on benefits is more guilty of draining the welfare state than an immigrant who is entitled to no benefits at all, and the young men who ride around my area on uninsured bikes making a racket and putting the lives of others at risk are not from overseas but from right here, in Salford.

My point is simply that society is far more complex than the 'blame it on the immigrants' attitude permits. There a thousand nuances to consider and immigration is only one facet of this little gem. There are sixty-one million people in the UK each with his or her own combination of problems, perspectives and circumstances, and I promise you that 'the immigrants' remain the minority by quite some margin. So don't come bleating to me about immigration. At least not until you have taken a long hard look at the issue you're complaining about. Understanding is the key - and not just understanding of the person who is different from you, but understanding of yourself and why you feel the way you feel.

It's All About the Money

The General Election is finally upon us but judging by the media, anyone would think that campaigning only started this week. The truth of the matter is that many activists, like myself, have been campaigning since before Christmas. Across the country, evenings have been spent in meetings or at home preparing leaflets, envelopes or the letters to go in them. Weekends have been spent meeting the public in the street, or posting leaflets through doors. However, now the real work begins.

Over the next few weeks I hope to try and blog regularly to give an impression of what it's like, as an activist, campaigning for local and national elections. I hope that you'll get some opinion, some insight and a feel for our constituency. I will try not to make it too dry. ;o)

So, the beginning of 'day four'. Where are we at?

Last night a group of us headed down to Salford Arts Theatre for a local 'Question Time' style debate. On the panel was the sitting Labour MP, Hazel Blears, Conservative candidate, Matthew Sephton, Liberal Democrat front-runner, Norman Owen, local journalist, Pamela Welsh and local TUC secretary, Alex Halligan.

There is a lot of ill feeling in our constituency (Salford and Eccles) towards the Labour party and Hazel Blears. During the summer of last year, it transpired that Hazel Blears had 'flipped' her home in order to avoid paying £13,000 in tax. She was far from the worst offender but has come out of this side of last year's expenses scandal very poorly. At the time, she showed up on TV waving a cheque, which she said would pay back the tax she had avoided. The reality of the publicity stunt was that the cheque was meaningless. Had she sent it to the Inland Revenue, they would not have had a mechanism to accept it. In addition, £13,000, the amount which seemed so insignificant to Hazel, is close to what many people in Salford get paid in a year. Thus, she came across as arrogant and effectively set herself apart from her voters. The only worse response would have been to stick two fingers up at the public on live TV. She followed this up by stabbing her party leader in the back and consequently losing her cabinet position. She saw an opportunity to progress her career and it back-fired. Needless to say, she is not a popular woman.

The event itself was very worthwhile and aside from a group of hecklers, served to genuinely engage the public. I think it was clear by the end of the meeting, that Hazel had done little to change the minds of those present, which is good news for our campaign! The event also served to confirm my worst fears about Labour and TUC politics.

Frankly, I have never seen so much ass-kissing in public. Throughout the event, the TUC panelist sucked up to Hazel at every opportunity. And the same was true in the opposite direction. There is a lot of back scratching going on and it couldn't have been more clear that the two organisations are in bed with each other if their representatives had stripped off right then and there! The TUC donates a significant amount of money to the Labour party, which in turn gives them a lot of power. I'm not saying the TUC dictates Labour party policy necessarily, but I do believe the Labour party is afraid of pissing off the unions for fear their funding will dry-up. Whether intentional or not, this will ultimately influence the behaviour of the party. At this point, you might be wondering what's wrong with that? Well, put simply, it's a conflict of interest. How can a government act in the interests of the nation when they are worried about their funding?

This is not a problem that is unique to British politics. It is a topic that featured in American politics time and again. Allowing unlimited donations to political parties and candidates means that it becomes possible to 'buy an election'. No-one really likes to admit it, but people are generally more impressed by a glossy full colour leaflet than by something produced in black and white on a Risograph, regardless of content. In also means that you can put more feet on the ground, stage more events and sometimes enables you to be more visible. Big money allows parties to campaign more aggressively over a much greater area and makes it more difficult for independents and smaller parties to compete. It's unfair and, in my opinion, undemocratic.

I think Lib-Dem policy puts it best:

"Politics should be a battle of ideas, not marketing budgets. No-one should be able to buy influence or buy an election. We will take big money out of politics by capping donations and spending throughout the electoral cycle."

A Reversal of 200 Years of 'Progress'

It's been a busy couple of weeks with a number of highs and not-so-highs.

Of the highs, the rehearsals for the Sing Live concert at the end of June are coming along nicely. Even the stress of a horrific day this Wednesday, when a simple airport pickup turned into a three hour nightmare, was very quickly eased by a few bars of 'It Had to be You'. My piano lessons are coming along similarly well - although I wish it was as easy to make my fingers move as fast as my mouth! Finally, Charly, survived a full service with no problems - what a relief!

In the not-so-highs category the top of the tree has to be the Irwell Riverside by-election. In case anyone has missed it, husband Steve was selected as the Lib Dem candidate. You can catch up on the events of the campaign on his own blog.

Being involved in his campaign - including helping to develop (or rather hone) the content of his leaflets and then 'on the frontline' posting those leaflets through the doors of the ward - has been a great experience. Watching the opening of the postal ballots was fascinating (I finally understand the need for all the bits of paper and those multi-coloured envelopes) while actually being able to attend the count in the evening was truly unique: not only because the media were circling like vultures awaiting the inevitable arrival of local political pariah, Hazel Blears, but also because so few 'ordinary' people get to see democracy up close and personal like this. In the end Steve came second behind the Labour candidate, Matt Mold.

All in all, it was a pretty positive result for the Lib Dems. This ward has traditionally been a Labour stronghold - last year they took a 51% share of the vote - so we were really taking the fight to them on their own territory. Steve attracted 18% of the vote (a reduction of only 1%) while the Conservatives and Labour lost out by 4% and 13% respectively. The recent Expenses Scandal has clearly taken its toll. It isn't just Labour that is paying the political price for the government's failure to set its house in order: every one of the major parties lost ground to the fringe parties (The Greens, UKIP and BNP all fielded candidates). Although we obviously hoped for better, given the circumstances losing only 1% share is an achievement.

So clearly I'm not disappointed with the result for the Lib Dems, so why am I not happy? There are two elements of the result that are extremely disappointing: The BNP and the voter turnout.

Until this by-election I have had few encounters with the BNP. I've been aware of them, of course, and will freely admit that I have always held a pretty low opinion of them as a political entity. However, it is not until I actually came face to face with them that I realised just how vile, deceitful and disrespectful they really are. Without going into a raft of detail (which would take me all day to catalogue) I was astonished by the sheer volume of lies and half-truths that they spouted in their propaganda and online on their own websites and particularly on those of others. Worryingly, they also showed absolutely no respect for democracy, even going as far as to suggest that some people should not be allowed to vote. If it's possible, they showed even less respect for the voting public talking openly in a highly derogatory manner referring to the voters as 'stupid', 'thick' or 'sheep' just because they didn't vote BNP. Finally, (and I speak from personal experience) they are downright nasty. Ignoring the disgusting abuse that their cohorts posted in comments on many local blogs, their behaviour at the evening count was akin to the level of school playground bullies. They were both puerile and venomous to other people present at the count as well as the returning officer. It is not just me that has noticed: Leader of the local Labour party, John Merry, has commented on Steve Cooke's blog.

However what disappoints me is not the BNP members or the party as a whole - I would expect little else from an organisation that has its roots firmly embedded in the fascist British National Front - it's the fact that the people of Salford appear to be falling for their rubbish. I don't mind if you choose to vote BNP as long as you understand who and what you are voting for (that is your choice and your right!) but I'm concerned that many voters may not be looking beyond the glossy surface of the BNPs leaflets or beyond their diverting but deceptive propaganda stunts. For goodness sake, if you are considering voting BNP in any election, please please please, make sure you are fully informed. A simple search in google or on reputable websites such as the BBC should reveal why so many people are set against their organisation.

However, no matter what my personal feelings about the BNP (or the mafia that they sent to the count) happen to be, the far greater disappointment in this by-election was the turnout. Only 17.5% of those people who are registered to vote in Irwell Riverside actually went to the trouble of doing so - that's less than 1 in 7 people! As a result, a little over 600 people chose the councillor for a ward of more than 9000 registered voters: that's less than 7% of people in the ward choosing who dictates the policies that directly influence the lives of everyone else. This kind of apathy means that decisions are made by a tiny minority of voters and it also opens the door to the fringe parties making extremely limited public support seem much greater than it actually is. This is not democracy! I'm sure that there are many people who didn't vote that would say 'my vote doesn't count' or 'I don't know who to vote for' or 'nothing will change so what's the point' or any number of similar excuses but the fact is by choosing to not vote you willingly reverse almost 200 years of progress.

Less than two centuries ago only 1 in 7 men could vote. Just 125 years ago less than half of all men could vote and women didn't have any voting rights at all. It wasn't until 1918 - less than a century ago - that any woman could vote in this country and it was only 81 years ago that we achieved universal suffrage. Two world wars were fought to maintain our sovereignty and democracy. Even now there are thousands of British troops protecting our democratic rights against terrorists who would like to see their religious and political views forced upon us, and all around the world their are millions of people that still have either no voting rights or can't vote freely.

Therefore, to those residents of Irwell Riverside who did not vote in this election my question is this: what response could you possibly give me that would justify allowing less than 7% of your community to make this choice for all of you?