Sounds like a return to the days when party “strategy” was “muddle through and hope a winnable by-election turns up…”

However what is a winnable by-election?

Neil – we have rather encouraged the media myth of the “unstoppable Lib Dem by-election machine”. Sometimes with good reason. Up to Brent East our average of by-elections we really went for was pretty good (the only failures being Walton and arguably Monmouth. Since then it’s not been as hot 4/8 (or 9 if you include Crewe) with one of those being a defence.

Our party OUGHT to be running wild in the polls, with the current economic disaster pulling Labour down for being the people in power who did nothing to stop its build-up, and the Tories being the other lot who wanted more of the same. Instead we’re making almost zero impact.

It wasn’t so long ago that there were people in the party telling us there was just one step we had to make, and then our message would be so brilliantly communicated that we’d be shooting up. And I remember writing “What the heck do people see in …” because I couldn’t for the life of me understand their enthusiasm for this step.

I still can’t.

We should not under-estimate how much resonance Old Labour can still muster with their traditional base on social services issues. Labour made net two gains in Bristol in 2007 against a Lib Dem administration preparing outsource home care. By going into opposition mode they managed to distance themselves from what was their own Governments policy, and it looks like they’ve pulled the same trick in Glenrothes.

Labour may be down, but they have a largeish hard-core vote which they can sometimes motivate…And as for the SNP bleating about others fighting on local issues, well……

However we don’t need much navel gazing. the partys opinion poll rating is 7% down from the last general lection or about 30% of the base vote.

its the national profile that has taken the hit not the machine on the ground.

Do we mount an entirely paperless campaign and run the risk of having no votes at all?

Do we not bother putting up a candidate?

The by-election limit of £100,000 puts us at a huge disadvantage from the start – if we are not the challenger, we are at a huge financial disadvantage.

I think that one of the answers is to be more aggressive with the journalists who choose to ignore us. The SNP basically got their press people to aggressively pursue a media strategy and give serious grief to journalists who didn’t print their stuff. Should we now be doing the same?

Gordon Brown is lucky that he was up against the Nats in this by-election – if we had been in second place, he would have been stuffed given Vince’s strong and credible messages on the economy.

We have a problem and CHANGE IS NEEDED !!!!

It has always been the case that winning in by-elections has been the exception rather than the rule.

The problem is that, rather like marauding vikings drinking ale round the fire, we tend to remember the glorious victories rather than the tedious disappointments.

This leads to an expectation that the ‘lib dem by-election machine’ will sweep all before it, even though that has never been the reality.

Previous parliamentary by-elections:

83-87 15 by-elections*, 4 wins
87-92 24 by-elections, 3 wins
92-97 18 by-elections, 4 wins
97-01 17 by-elections**, 1 win
01-05 6 by-elections, 2 wins
05 to date 13 by-elections, 1 win

* excludes mass NI by-elections Jan 86
** excludes Winchester re-run

I suspect that just means the Sky commentator was as confused about the policy as many people are.

Obviously there is an “aspiration” that not all of the £20bn would be reallocated.

“Gordon Brown never tires of repeating the charge that we would cut spending by £20 billion. Since we have failed to repudiate that charge in a clear and unambiguous manner”

- I tend to agree, although something strange happened during the Sky coverage of PMQs this week.

When Gordon Brown attacked Clegg for ’20bn cuts’ the Sky voice over commentator butted in during the live coverage itself and clarified by saying:

“The Lib Dems of course would reallocate £20bn not cut it”

So someone in our press office is doing an excellent job ensuring that the opinion formers are clear about what we are saying.

I agree that this message needs to get out on the ground too.

But well done the press office!

Yes, I was disappointed by the Crewe result at the time, but in hindsight maybe we should have been pleased with it.

Not that long ago it was the exception rather than the rule that we would do well in a by-election. Perhaps we just need to accept that we have returned to those days. I don’t think any of this bodes badly for the general election, as it was only really a three year period when we seemed to be able to win anything. Also if you look back, our record in Scottish by-elections has always been mixed. The only real concern is that the Tories overtook us (a larger core vote perhaps?).

For party morale, what we really need is a by-election in a seat where we are a good second (to either Labour or Conservatives) and where we can credibly win.

I think I’ve said elsewhere that Crewe is easily the best result of the four by-elections.

We certainly don’t seem to have managed that! If I were a Glenrothes Lib Dem member I’d be very, very, very disheartened today.

We must stop leaving byelection victims in our wake!!

p.s. the Lib Dem (and Tory) performances in Glasgow East and Glenrothes, and the Labour performance in Henley all point to the thankless task of being the 3rd or 4th party in a byelection. Perhaps we need to recognise the achievement of Neil Trafford and his team in holding up the Lib Dem vote share in Crewe & Nantwich.

Sesenco is right – Glenrothes not only stuck a finger up at independence, they also told the SNP to spin on it.

It isn’t just a simple question of “tax cuts”. Obama has come in promising tax cuts as part of a Keynesian programme to save jobs in a recession, alongside public infrastructure spending and increased benefits. US voters have approved that as the right policy for tough times.

All that is very different from taking a doctrinaire position that taxes should be lower and state spending should be reduced, as a long term philosophy. (And never mind tough times, Keynesian economics, jobs, or human feelings, it’s the political philosophy that seems to come first!)

Gordon Brown never tires of repeating the charge that we would cut spending by £20 billion. Since we have failed to repudiate that charge in a clear and unambiguous manner, I would contend that Brown is quite entitled to continue making it. He thinks it is going to cost us votes. I think his judgment is correct.

What Glenrothes should be compared with is Glasgow East, Hamilton South and Monklands East (I know that one was 1994, but it’s valid.) We had no real organisation locally, and no councillor elected in the constituency for a number of years. We were squeezed tightly by both the SNP and Labour, and I suspect that some of our vote has gone in both directions with others simply staying at home.

Whether we should fight or not is up for argument. We had to fight this one, simply because of its location (next door to Ming’s and Willie’s seats) and the fact we are in administration on Fife Council – if we hadn’t put up a strong fight we could have had even more problems.