This week’s London by-elections brought a good pair of Liberal Democrat results – retaining a seat in Brent with a much increased majority and moving up into second place in Harrow.
They also brought another two poor results for the Conservatives, results which look worse the more you know about their campaign in each of the by-elections. In Harrow, they fell from second to third with an 11% fall in their vote, despite having called the by-election and then fought a keen campaign. In Brent their vote fell by 3% after having fought an intensive election campaign with the local Liberal Democrat team spotting at least seven different Conservative leaflets and also seeing the Conservatives out canvassing most nights.
This followed last week’s similarly hyped and then failing Conservative campaign in Highgate ward, Haringey. That saw a large increase in the Liberal Democrat majority, though having the sort of candidate in Peter Forrest who posts comments on the internet calling their opponent “spineless” and “lobotomised” probably did not help the Conservative cause. (This was, though, rather mild compared to some of his previous comments including a written threat in 2002 to publish personal details about a Liberal Democrat candidate if the party stood against him in his ward. We did. We won.)
Across all sorts of parts of London, and in areas with all sorts of political contests, the Conservatives have now consistently done poorly in by-elections with their vote falling in five out of the last six, the one exception being a small 2% rise. (For more details see my previous posting.)
All in all, this is not the sort of run in that Boris Johnson’s campaign can have been hoping for.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Rob Heale
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
Chloe
13 Comments
As the Greens have also been sliding downhill in London in recent months, this makes things very interesting in the run-up to 1 May and the 2009 Euros. We need to keep banging home the message in Focus ater Focus, all around London, that in 2008, Liberal Democrats are the winning team.
But, Mark, you undoubtedly know that this is the party which the Sunday Times tells us has 43 per cent support nationally, and a 16 per cent lead over Labour. With so little support evident in London by-elections, they must be mopping up a tidal waves of support out in the counties. I did notice they won a couple of town council seats in Wantage….
I’ll come right out with it… I’m a Tory. I admit that, but please don’t take this post as just a partisan snipe, I’m just offering a caveat:
Didn’t Rallings & Thrasher try to ‘predict’ the 2006 & 2007 local election results with by-elections which had taken place during the preceding 12 months? And they were a long way off. I don’t think by-elections are reliable indicators of what may happen in May.
I’m not shouting ‘BORIS WILL WIN!’ from the rooftops… I’m just saying that *everyone* should perhaps be a little more cautious when using council by-elections to forsee what may happen.
One does not wish to seem cynical but the Con home web-site always puts poll nifo out for discussion good or bad! Yet this site focuses on a couple of imnsignificant local counts and fails to mention the You Gov/ICM news this w/e!!!!!!
Where to start? Yes, you have had some very good results in recent weeks. Congratulations. These, though, were achieved by throwing thousands of activists and leaflets at them – something you always do during by-elections. You cannot do that in ‘normal’ elections. And you know it.
As for Peter’s alleged comments, which I would not have used myself, I understand that his words were to describe Lib Dems generally – not Rachel Allison, the by-election candidate. It was YOU who linked them to her, the poor thing. As for (him) “including a written threat in 2002 to publish personal details about a Liberal Democrat candidate if the party stood against him in his ward” – I have never heard that claim before. Do you make these things up as you go along?
I happen to like Lynne Featherstone – having met her in person for the first time last December. That said, I don’t think you are doing her much good in the long-term by mis-representing the views of people in rival parties. You’re clearly in the “act shamelessly, stir endlessly and be wicked” tendency of the LDs. Your personalised attacks and spitefulness will come back to haunt you.
Justin: Peter Forrest’s comments were clearly about Rachel. If he’s now trying to argue they weren’t, he’s not telling you the full story about what he actually said online.
As for the 2002 incident, I’ve got a copy of the document in question to prove it. So I’m quite happy with the accuracy of that story, but thanks for checking 🙂
PS I do like the irony in your final comment. Have you read your own blog over the last year? There must be a hacker at work…
How can you prove that his remarks were about Ms. Allison? I would like to see that document before I can comment on it.
Yes, I have (obviously!) – what’s wrong with it?
My password is not 1234…
Glad to hear you’ve got good IT security Justin 🙂
The Peter Forrest comment I’m refering to is one that he made on a Liberal Democrat website (and wasn’t published), but you talk about seeing a document, so I wonder if we are talking about different things?
“As for the 2002 incident, I’ve got a copy of the document in question to prove it”
“Liberal Democrat website (and wasn’t published”
I am interested in both.
Well this is good news…local government is the bed rock of bottom-up party building…though whether it will translate into a poor vote for Boris has yet to be seen…
What is becoming clear that Labour will most likely get a good drubbing in Mays local elections with the Lib Dems doing well in urban areas..The Shires may be not as bad as some people think!
‘Peter Forrest who posts comments on the internet calling their opponent “spineless” and “lobotomised”…’
then
‘The Peter Forrest comment I’m refering to is one that he made on a Liberal Democrat website (and wasn’t published)…’
Hmm. Well we can all say that now can’t we? I’ve known Mark Pack does the Lib Dem cause no end of harm since he posted on my blog that Shirley Williams likes to ****** and then **** ** **** from Simon Hughes’ giant ***** ******* **** and Mark Oaten with a hamster. Obviously I couldn’t publish any of this but now I have lots of ammo (and innuendo) to smear – I mean – fire at him.
If the damn thing wasn’t published on the blog then obviously it did Peter Forrest’s campaign no harm at all. What did do it harm was the crappy ’50s “election address” style literature that Tories put out having no idea how to run a by-election campaign.
Back in the real world just because the Tories fall X% in the Wherever South by-election for the London Borough of Somewhere does not mean Paddick is going to get into the final two. I wish the literature would advise Lib Dem supporters as to their 2nd preference because any Lib Dem “surge” is only going to draw more 1st prefs away of whom 1000s may not understand the 2nd preffing system.