If anything, I would have thought that the LibDem whipping of their House of Lords supporters to vote for ratification of Lisbon AFTER the Irish referendum would have incensed people more than before, particularly since the LibDems had pretended that it was not effectively the same as the Constitution for Europe AND had then offered another referendum they thought they would win instead of the one they had promised which they knew they would lose. That is really no way for a political party or party leader to behave.

You are not comparing like with like, when you compare a By-election with the General Election.

If the LibDems had had a persuasive narrative – particularly a EU-sceptic one – they would have done well in a By-election, but they didn’t. It was, I think, a very bad result for them, given all the effort and hype.

What we should do is to abolish all agricultural subsidies overnight, as New Zealand did in 1984. I do not think that French farmers would ever let the EU do that, however much LibDems may enjoy being in the forefront of debate about it.

The EU with its CAP is a protectionist organisation that does not suit the best interests of the British people, although it does of course suit the interests of the landed interest, with its tax-free inheritance of land passing from generation to generation.

It certainly seemed amazingly phoney to pretend he was local when apparently he had just moved into the constituency for the By-election. I had someone from the village he was supposed to be living in ring me as the local continuation Liberal Party contact to ask what his address was. The truth would have been better.

I think it would have been better to say that he would move into the Constituency if elected, since everyone knew he had recently been saying equally nice things about living in Exeter, no doubt with good reason.

In combination with the LibDem refusal in leaflets to accept what I believe were genuine protestations of support for the Green Belt by John Howell, the overall impression was of rather sleazy and negative campaigning.

Thanks. I take your point, but equally, having an EU-sceptic continuation Liberal Party also has its effect.

But delighted to hear of LibDem EU-sceptics. More power to your elbow! After I changed my mind about the EU as it changed from the EEC and the Iron Curtain fell, I was one for a while, but just found it too much like hitting my head against a brick wall, but that was some years ago now.

In the Labour Party there is an EU-sceptic “EU Safeguards Group” or similar name, of which I am a ‘library member’. It produces an excellent news letter. Is there any similar EU-sceptic organisation within the LibDems?

As Henley came after the Irish referendum vote I think euroscepticism would be less of a factor.

Context: Safe Tory seat. Incumbent left on a high. Tories high in polls.
Result? Tories hold seat. Lib Dem % vote WENT UP. Labour tanked.

Unless you argue that all of that is due to a uniquely brilliant Lib Dem candidate (and he was a good’un) then it’s not a bad result for us.

EU-realism is a far more productive position in solving the problems which face all Europeans for the benefit of all Europeans than any ‘leave your brain at the door’ emoting indulged in by the fanatics on both sides.

Can I respectfully suggest that you’re more likely to move the LDs in an EU-sceptic direction from within the party, rather than from outside?

We happy few (EU-sceptic LDs) need all the support we can muster !

“Would we be willing to abandon the dynamic effect on our democracy afforded by by-elections like yesterday and lose the ability to apply symbolic value to local voices? Not completely.”

Not at all, as far as I am concerned! Are you referring to the difficulty by-elections present to STVM (STV to some) – the Single Transferable Vote in Multi-member constituencies? No such difficulties present themselves with STVS (AV to some) – the Single Transferable Vote in Single member constituencies.

It is ONLY for Westminster that STVS is the ONLY early and practical reform, since MPs would not have to vote for the extinction of their costituencies.

I wish LibDems would take this on board via this blog. But I have no intention of joining the party while it is so enthusiastically and dogmatically wedded to full membership of the EU, CAP and CFU. Perish the thought! I just hope the party’s views will change before it is too late for them, the country and for me!

In the meantime, thank you for the hospitality of your blog!

What about increasing Local Democracy and reversing the trend to mega-Councils run from County level?

We are out of line with most of Europe (and the USA) on that one, I think.

Simply put, the best method of getting there is to get more LibDems elected and in doing so building a critical groundswell of support for the specific form it will take.

It’s a shame your outcome-based approach creates the resistance to the change you desire when you could be part of the force which brings it closer.

Personally I think all forms of election have their strengths and could find their place within a fully-functioning democracy.

Would we be willing to abandon the dynamic effect on our democracy afforded by by-elections like yesterday and lose the ability to apply symbolic value to local voices? Not completely.
Does the public want to allow our opinion to be sidetracked or ignored? Not at all.
Would it help the party system to lose these valuable opportunities to engage voters? Not on your nelly.
Does the spectacle of hundreds of committed campaigners and politicians pounding the streets dramatise and vivify our politics? Absolutely – we want more of it please.

If the LibDems were clearly different from both the Tories and New Labour, they would have done much better in Henley, especially in a By-election. But the result was basically:

Pro-promised referendum – Conservatives, Greens, BNP and UKIP – 66 %

Referendum promise-breakers – EU-fanatic LibDems and New Labour – 31 %.

It looks as if the Greens, BNP and UKIP are becoming the non-Conservative Party EU protest votes.

WHAT ARE THE LIBDEMS FOR? Unique selling points? Think of next years EU elections.

Unlike the Conservatives – ” a far fairer country, with greater equality of opportunity in education, health and the inheritance of wealth”?

Unlike New Labour – What? if not EU-sceptic?

The EU, CAP, CFP, etc do not suit us. We should leave full membership of the EU and join Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and other countries who feel the same, including probably Turkey and maybe Russia, in an European Economic Area. That is not an illiberal thought in a global world with a bureaucratic and protectionist EU. Time for a re-think, LibDems – and Liberals all!

Exactly! It doesn’t need to be. As well as the advantages I mention it would be more proportional than X voting. Consider Newbury in 1974. Con 24,000, Lib 23,000, Lab 10,000. I would have been elected MP, as would a number of other Liberals. As it was, only 14 were, while the national vote was about 21 %, as far as I remember.

Insisting on strict proportionality has delayed electoral reform for years.

At the AGM of the Electoral Reform Society tomorrow there is a resolution about a one line Parliamentary bill to change X voting into 1,2,3.. voting in existing single memnber constituencies.

At last they have twigged that for years they have been making the best the enemy of the good, as far as Westminster is concerned. No MP wants to vote to abolish her or his constituency.

Not PR but PV.

Not ‘STV’ but ‘AV’

Not STVM but STVS

All that needs to change is to vote 1,2,3.., the Single Transferable Vote in existing Single member constituencies instead of X.

Not full Proportional Representation but Preferential Voting. No safe seats. One MP per constituency. No top up MPs. No party lists. No wasted votes. Every vote counts. No multi-member constituencies.

But in terms of the principle of selection on academic merit, I thoroughly support it. Indeed, if we want the brighter kids to fulfil their potential, I suugest it is essential. It is most interesting that the education system within the USSR (one of the few successes of that regime, and an area with which I am moderately familiar) relied heavily upon selection by merit, and indeed used this very successfully to drive social mobility.

The alterntive to selection at the school level- streaming within a school – has some definite advantages, not least that it allows considerably greater flexibility. It does, however, fix school sizes to a certain extent because to be effective the school has to be large enough to require separate streams. Of course that works quite well with the current vision of mega-schools although there is consderable evidence that smaller “boutique” schools may serve some children better.

However, in terms of improving standards across the board, the supply side approach we advocate seems like an extremely strong mechanism for change. In fact, it is somewhat sad (and indeed, revealing) that you choose to concentrate on Grammars rather then the body of Conservative policy in this area.

If by your question you mean where does the Conservative party stand, then I am not the best person to ask. Write to Mr Gove, he is usually most helpful. But I will have a go.

In terms of context, Grammar schools have totemic status amongst some of the population because they stand for a level of meritocratic educational aspiration and social mobility that the comprehensive system, for a number of practical reasons, finds hard to match.

In terms of policy, my understanding is that, for pursely practical reasons, areas that have a Grammar system may need to build more Grammar schools to match any increased requirement in places, but that there would be no general move towards such a system.

It is hoped that the supply side reforms should, in any case, negate the need for new Grammar schools although it seems perfectly sensible to me for local residents to want to be convinced that the new system is improving standards to the extent we hope before weakening their attachement to Grammars.

Sorry for the ramble; I hope it goes some way towards answering your question.

“We are the only alternative to the Conservatives in rural areas and we are the only alternative to Labour in urban areas – we are the growing, vibrant alternative in British politics.

“In terms of the proportion of the vote, we have gone forward – completely confounding all of the predictions that this would be a simple walk in the park for the Conservatives.

“So I think it is a real sense of momentum and progress for us in what remains one of the Conservative Party’s heartland seats.”

Where do you stand on grammar schools?