The last 24 hours have seen many suggestions from readers about the conduct of by-elections.
Now it seems that the opportunity to put these suggestions into practice is coming up quicker than expected.
David Marshall MP has told his local Labour party that he will stand down because of his worsening health.
The results last time:
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | David Marshall | 18,775 | 60.7 | -3.0 |
| Scottish National Party | Lachlan McNeill | 5,268 | 17.0 | -0.1 |
| Liberal Democrat | David Jackson | 3,665 | 11.8 | +6.0 |
| Conservative | Carl Thomson | 2,135 | 6.9 | +0.8 |
| Scottish Socialist Party | George Savage | 1,096 | 3.5 | -3.4 |
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Morecambe and Wise and Leonard Rossiter
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
Katharine Pindar
David Warren
David Raw
95 Comments
It is a normal by-election caused the resignation of the sitting member therefore we contest the seat saying that Labour in Wesminster are weak and that it is better to elect a 64th Liberal Democrat to Parliament, than a 7th SNP member (and perhaps at the sa tme raise the question of what the First Minister of Scotland is doing sitting as an MP still?)
After Henley, spend about a tenner on it.
Can we not get someone to stand on a point of principle that we agree with, and thereby avoid standing and (possibly) losing our deposit?
I would put a minimal effort into to be honest. Just as the Lib Dems are being squeezed by the Tories in England, the SNP in Scotland are the dominant political force. We offer nothing against them and unfortunately Nicol Stephen comes accross as an over-promoted school head-boy.
Let the SNP & Labour fight it out and watch from a safe distance.
Go through the motions. It’s obvious this is a two horse race and we ain’t one of the horses.
We’d just compound the problems that are surrounding the ramping up strategy if we went down the ‘Winning here’ route. Besides we only got 8% and 6% in the Scottish Parliament seats in 2007 that make up this constituency. We’d be ignored or laughed at.
This is already set up as another test for Labour so they are the target to go for. The public mood is against them and we have to be seen as being with the mood of the people.
We should fight this on issues and one of those is scrapping the council tax and introducing a local income tax. Whilst the SNP’s version has many shortcomings it is a general principle we could make hay with throughout the country if we can make that a defining issue in this campaign. It will allow us to grab that issue and run with it nationally since the Tories are weak on this issue and support keeping the unpopular council tax.
Douglas and C. Davison are right regarding this type of seat; Glasgow East != Dunfermline.
It’s time to get real. Run a paper candidate and tacitly back the SNP. We haven’t a hope in hell here and any amount of bar-charting and “winning here” rhetoric from Cowley Street is going to backfire even more spectacularly than C&N, even if we could exhume and reanimate John Stuart Mill and put him up as the candidate. It makes much more sense to maximise our chances in winnable seats than waste time, money, resources and energy on those where we come third or lower with desultory percentage shares of the vote.
Get real – we can’t win this. Yes, of course, we need a candidate, and a campaign; but not the effort we’ve put into other recent by-elections.
Despite the wailling and gnashing of teeth on here about slogans, leaflets, personalities and whatever else, I would have thought it blindingly obvious that we weren’t going to win either Henley or Crewe. Perhaps we won the campaign – I am not sure the average voter cares one jot about that.
All I can see is that, by not being honest with ourselves, we are frittering away precious money and man hours, not to mention media and activist goodwill.
I’d prefer us to start spending the serious money currently being thrown on hopeless by-election campaigns in reinforcing and defending our current crop of seats that are under considerable threat from the Tories.
On top of that, we need to target the rest of the resource on the 32 best Lab/LD marginals – these will be our gains at the next election.
Everything else should be virtually abandoned.
If we don’t re-focus, I believe we risk overstretch – with the result that we will lose a large batch of Lib Dem / Tory marginals and still fail to capitalise on Labour weaknesses where we are in a close second.
This is the ‘meltdown’ scenario that I fear we are sleep-walking into by pretending the political backdrop has not substantially changed in the last year.
If we launch at this in the same we have other recent by-elections we will further demoralise activists, waste resources and weaken further our held seats (by once again sucking out organisers and having the campaigns department’s attention elsewhere).
I, for one, am totally fed up with being told – by email, text and through the post – that we can win everywhere there just happens to be an election and all we need is a final push, another leaflet, more people etc etc, when it should be clear we simply can’t.
Let’s focus on holding what we have and making 30+ gains from Labour. Then we really do have a chance of exiting the next election around the 100 mark and significantly changing the narrative.
Anonymous, amen to that. Hire him!
Apologies if I’m wrong but I appear to the first Scottish member to comment on this.
Out of the 11 ‘contested’ by elections this Parliament this will be the third held in the central belt of Scotland. There will shortly also be a third Scottish Parliamentary election in that period.
This is the first big test of the SNP in Scotland since they became the majority party in Holyrood. They have made a number of errors in trying to get things through which they do not have the power under the Scotland Act to do. While it is true that Labour up here have recently seen the Wendy House of Cards topple the SNP are not necessarily doing everything they have promised and need to be challenged on that.
Whether we win this seat or not (as it does look unlikely) it would be duplicitous to go through the motions, unprincipled not to take it seriously and a threat to our independent status to offer tacit support to any opponent.
We need to stand up for what we do believe in and we need to show that we are prepared and willing to fight for them.
There are intangibles which can be gained by running a by-election against conventional wisdom, and these are too important to lose sight of.
We didn’t give up C&N, we fought against the tide in Henley’s Thames, and we should show H&H is exceptional by doing professional job in Glasgow East.
A campaign run on issues against in an entrenched seat held by an unpopular government is the way to go on this one. This isn’t a local campaign about scottish independence, nor is it a fight for the succession – this is an opportunity to be counted on what we feel is important and that includes full participation in the democratic process (it’s in our name).
Campaigning on Clegg’s core issues will provide him clear definition, and any gain in our vote share (which is almost certain, unless the SNP start calling it close and the squeeze starts) will give him a mandate for those issues.
To prove we a mature party we cannot concede what we cannot gain because there is always plenty to be gained.
I agree that this offers a great opportunity for us to diverge from the Rennardian by-election handbook and show we can adapt to the territory.
This by-election should be about raising our profile and using our heavy hitters, rather than asking how much paper we can print and deliver.
Why not run a campaign based on some policies ?
“[e]ven if we could exhume and reanimate John Stuart Mill and put him up as the candidate.”
Mill wasn’t very successful as a candidate – he lost his Westminster seat after just three years (probably because he was such a strong critic of Governor Eyre’s bloody suppression of a rebellion in Jamaica).
Nice one mouse!
Yes Mouse, it is a chance for Clegg to demonstrate his leadership.
Oranjepan – spot on !
My suggestions:
a) talk to the local party and gauge what can usefully (and realistically) be achieved;
b) IF victory is unrealistic, plan a strategy which consolidates our support (perhaps by working specific areas/ demographics/ issues);
c) do not be distracted by any desire to “stuff more paper through people’s doors than anybody else”;
d) don’t spend more than is appropriate.
Is there already an existing website for the Glasgow East Liberal Democrats?
As there is little or no chance of winning, I would use the whole campaign in Scotland to lay into Labour. We have unfairly gained a reputation as being close to Labour in Scotland, whearas our teue purpose was to get what we believed was best for Scotland, which we largely achieved. Like tuition fees and free care for the elderly. I would use this to really show everyone in Scotland – and elsewhere – that we despise GB and all his works but remain firmly opposed to tories whichever flag they wave, the Union Jack or the Saltire!
“Let’s focus on holding what we have and making 30+ gains from Labour. Then we really do have a chance of exiting the next election around the 100 mark and significantly changing the narrative.”
Sorry, but I think we’re in the realms of fantasy here. In the three opinion polls just released, Labour’s lead over us is on average about 11 points. At the last election it was 13 points. That represents only a 1% swing.
We wouldn’t gain anything like 30 seats from Labour on a 1% swing, and if Henley is anything to go by the Tories would make significant gains from us.
In the circumstances, we would be doing well if we maintained our current representation in parliament.
What’s with all these concern trolls trying to write negative comments about our prospects? I find it laughable. Go and try to undermine someone else, it isn’t working here.
Squif’ – it’s electioneering burn-out, or, for those who couldn’t make it, analysis burn-out.
No, I actually think some of these people are enemies, posing as supporters, trying to weaken our morale. It’s a fairly well-known tactic.
asquith,
it’s not all trollery !
there is a perfectly reasonable question – if the party has a spare £40k [for example] is it better spent on Glasgow East, or on consolidating a “held but vulnerable” seat ?
On the figures I don’t see why it is winnable for the SNP but not us – though it is a pretty tough nut for either.
What it is an opportunity to try is to road test some new techniques and messages rather than ploughing the same furrow which hasn’t been proving as effective recently.
I’ve been saying we should adapt and develop our techniques – not just give up! 🙂
The best bet would be to run a medium level campaign. A token campaign would be unprincipled and strategically awful. We should aim to get Labour into third place, or at least come a respectable third. If we bomb, it’ll send out a clear message that we’re not willing or able to pick up Labour votes.
As was commented on the Henley threads, Tubbs-and-Edward are-you-localism isn’t going to help us much any more. We can pick up votes from Labour from attacking Brown’s endless blundering over 10p tax, the economy, etc. The SNP will be an enormously tougher opponent. We can mention the defence jobs that Glasgow will lose if the Union breaks.
We should take strong principled stances even if they don’t ‘play well’ in this constituency. Gay rights is an obvious one. Highlighting that will give us a moral boost across all of Scotland. The SNP can’t emphasise any gay-friendly credentials, without angering their sugar-daddy Brian Souter.
Stem cell research is another. It’s quite likely that an independent Scotland would outlaw it, given the strong religious influence on the SNP.
Finally, there’s rail transport. We’re pretty good on this front, and it’s going to be a big deal in Glasgow with its large urban rail network. We could emphasise our commitment to it, and contrast that with the SNP’s utter disinterest in it. Amongst other things, they’ve pushed the Glasgow Crossrail onto the backburner.
Moving onto more Scottish Parliament related matters, I’d love it if we could have a policy phasing out faith schools, They’re unpopular and divisive. We’re certain to be the first major party to actually propose this, but it’ll be a long time coming, probably when church attendance has gone down to 5% or less. We ought to represent the secular society that Britain (and Scotland) is, rather than chasing bishop’s skirts.
‘Oranjepan’
It may have escaped your notice that while there is a tide in London, we have a current in Henley!
Just a quibble from my Naval past! No political significance that I can think of – except perhaps that it is all one way in Henley, but ebb and flow elsewhere!
I didn’t really mean to encourage you – until you mend your EU ways, that is – but there it is!
Anyway, as an Orcadian/Campbell/Stewart, I hope you will be valiantly supporting the Union, rather than the European variety with Scottish independence from the UK, if you put up a candidate.
“What’s with all these concern trolls trying to write negative comments about our prospects? I find it laughable.”
I find it laughable that so many people here come out with nonsense about “Tory trolls” when they’re unable to think of any reasoned counter-argument.
Clearly the idea of 30 gains from Labour is not justified by the current state of the polls. Do you really want to live in a fool’s paradise, and divert resources out of seats we actually hold that are under threat, into seats that we aren’t going to win anyway?
We should certainly fight a vigorous campaign based on realistic objectives. Labour is very weak in Scotland at the moment thanks to the Wendy Alexander fiasco, so if we campaign hard against them we should benefit. It’s also a chance to expose the Gnats for some of their mistakes while in office.
One point people haven’t mentioned yet is that areas like Glasgow East are ones where we need to develop support if we want to improve our position in the list votes, for Scotland in the European Parliament elections next year and on the Glasgow regional list at the next Scottish Parliament election. It will also be worth trying to develop our local government position in Glasgow, bearing in mind we now have STV for those elections.
Judging by the result at the general election, the job in Glasgow East appears to be – get more votes than the Tories.
‘Anax’:
Hurrah for phasing out divisive faith schools!
Let children learn about all the nonsensical religious myths instead of just one of them, and about the one golden rule instead of all the nonsensical moral – or immoral – prejudices!
We mustn’t let religion and nuclear weapons be the end of us, as they may have been in other earlier advanced worlds – elsewhere in our galaxy. For why haven’t we heard from them?
Dane, the stream is all one way, I’ll give you that, especially downriver from me to thee, but I still don’t understand why you find yourself unable to translate that principle to unionism – the principle of European integration leading to union was instituted to expand British politics and was symbolically signed in London after all!
Just like the SNP it seems you are trying to swim against interdependence.
We’re a distant third in this one so I’d say this is a golden opportunity to try some new stuff out. Let’s not do the paper chase, let’s try some smarter advertising and promotion.
My view is that we should be having this discussion in the members-only part of this site (apart from anything else it would not be diverted by irrelevancies from opponents such as Dane Clouston).
Tony Greaves
From what I saw and experienced as a candidate campaigning in May last year, the Nats are the home for disaffected Labour votes in Scotland. As a party in Scotland we can offer policies voters occasionally like to know what we believe in. It was like this on the doorstep –
Labour = workclass (even if the working class is not happy with Labour).
Nats = for Scotland (inc the working class) and a projection of confidence (Salmond is the most effective party leader in Scotland).
Tories = business, crime, rural areas and the Union.
Greens = environment.
Lib Dems = ?
We need to get a message accross that we believe in something other than good sensible policies.
Douglas
This message – “we need to think of a message to get across so that we can get elected” – seems to be very prevalent at the moment.
Shouldn’t it be the other way round?
Anon (10.43pm)
So you mean get elected and then decide on the message? A novel approach I suppose but I doubt it would work.
In by-elections we usually get by on a variation of “we are not the government”. At national elections this hasn’t worked.
Anonymous wrote:
“and if Henley is anything to go by the Tories would make significant gains from us.”
Wrong. The Lib Dem percentage vote went UP in Henley.
Glasgow East presents a number of difficulties. There are few Lib Dem activists in the region, and I can’t imagine too many coachloads of English members making the trip there. The constituency is a collection of rather grotty 1950s and 1960s council estates with high levels of crime and anti-social behaviour. Sectarianism, class hatred and Anglophobia are rife. It is not a very safe or pleasant place to run a byelection campaign (especially for those who have English accents).
Having said all that, the Liberal Democrats must stand a candidate and run some kind of campaign (even if it amounts to a couple of paid deliveries).
No way should we give tacit or any other kind of support or succour to the SNP. This is the SNP which is proposing to raise the legal drinking age to 21. The SNP that grovels to Donald Trump. The SNP that panders to Brian Souter and his homophobia. I would love to see Smart Alec and his ghastly crew kicked in the goolies.
The SNP will probably run Labour close, but I don’t think they will win. About half the constituency is Roman Catholic, and they will stick with Labour.
‘Tony Greaves’
Poor you, forced to read a comment about phasing out faith schools – something strategically important to our future.
What are the LibDems for? What are Liberals for? Liberty, Property and Security for all?
Unlike the Conservatives – A far fairer country, with a wider spread of the private ownership of wealth in each new generation, as part of the conditions – in addition to education and health – for greater equality of opportunity?
Unlike New Labour – EU-sceptic? Secular schools? GENUINE Opportunity for All – with a judicious positive redistribution of inherited wealth rather than income – instead of Savings Incentives Schemes and Trusts for largely only those whose parents can afford to save and give?
No? What, then?
I am an opponent – at present – because the LibDems have gone overboard in near unanimity in the EU-philiac direction. That may change. I hope it does. Taboos hide the truth. Heretics lead the way.
I appreciate the Liberal Democrat Blog and am impressed by it.
Some ideas here for a campaign.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/glasgow?articleid=4210616
Sesenco:
““and if Henley is anything to go by the Tories would make significant gains from us.”
Wrong. The Lib Dem percentage vote went UP in Henley.”
Well, of course, even that is disingenuous. I’m sure you know as well as I do that this was the first by election in a Lib Dem/Tory marginal where there was a swing _from_ us _to_ the Tories.
But the real point is that that was after an intensive by election campaign. For the last 30 years or so we have performed far better in by elections than in other elections. If the result in a by election is a swing to the Tories, then you can draw your own conclusions about the likely result in Tory/Lib Dem marginals in a general election.
Am I alone in finding Sesenco’s comments offensive and verging on racist?
He/she accuses the SNP of pandering to homophobia while displaying (appantly unknowingly) disgusting snobbery and class predjudice. Yuk.
I wrote:
“This message – “we need to think of a message to get across so that we can get elected” – seems to be very prevalent at the moment.
Shouldn’t it be the other way round?”
Douglas wrote:
“So you mean get elected and then decide on the message? A novel approach I suppose but I doubt it would work.”
Oh, come off it. You know perfectly well that’s not what I said, and not what I meant.
At the moment, the party, as represented on these boards – which I hope to God isn’t the same thing as the party in reality – is giving the impression of a bunch of people who want to be elected, casting around for the “message” – any “message” – that will get them elected.
What I’m saying is that it should be the other way round. Getting elected shouldn’t be an end in itself. The principles should come first, and they should be the reason for wanting to be elected.
This has to be the most ridiculous post on Lib Dem Voice ever. No wonder it’s been plagued by anonymous posters giving ‘helpful’ advice that is of no benefit to the party.
We stand and we fight. We’re a political party seeking political power FFS. It’s what political parties do.
The question should not have been asked.
Anonymous,
A serious argument is based on facts, not woolly assumptions.
If the Henley swing were replicated across the country, those Lib Dem MPs with leads of less than 3% would lose. But all of those MPs (who are standing again) carry with them the benefit of incumbency, which is more than enough to counteract a swing of 1.5%.
Henley is entirely consistent with the local election results which indicate that the Tories have made huge ground against Labour, but little or none against the Liberal Democrats.
If Cameron’s party can get more than 20% in Glasgow East, then I will concede that the Tories have scored a significant advance. But I bet you they won’t come anywhere close to that.
Dan says;
We stand and we fight. We’re a political party seeking political power FFS. It’s what political parties do.
True. But doesn’t it need to be done for a purpose? I know this party has beliefs and principles but we present ourelves as an “anything for a vote” bunch of opportunists with all the “winning here” and bogus bar chart stuff. What is the point of power is we hide our principles and try to win easy votes by using what are (at best) stretches of the truth? As we win so shall we govern. Tony Blair should have taught us that.
Ash,
Presumably you are maintaining that sectarianism, class hatred and Anglophobia are not significant factors in Glasgow East? Is that right?
If you have some specialist knowledge of the place and can paint a more accurate picture, then please do so.
If, on the other hand, you are simply someone who wishes to shut down a discussion by accusing anyone with an opposing opinion of being “racist”, then maybe you should come clean.
Where is your evidence that I am “racist” and display “disgusting snobbery” and “class prejudice”? You don’t have any, do you?
I have pointed to circumstances that obtain in Glasgow East that are unlikely to be helpful to a Lib Dem campaign there. That is what the post invites me to do.
Someone in another thread on this site has described Henley as “socially conservative”. Is that “racist”, too?
‘Anonymous’:
It is such a relief to see your honest and truthful assessment of the Henley By-election result as compared with the wishful thinking and actually dishonest spinning from some others who do not compare like with like.
To be elected, LibDems have got to escape their dangerous and dogmatic near unanimity on the EU.
It has always been difficult having to fight Conservatives in the South – where LbDems/Liberals tend as a result to be relatively on the left – and to fight Labour in the North – where LibDems/Liberals tend as a result to be relatively on the right. The Steel/Pardoe – Bournemouth Assemblies/Blackpool Assemblies – divide. So the party has tended to be unsure of where it is on have/have-not issues. So non-have/have-not issues on which there is easier agreement have been held on to too tightly.
EU-philia is one such. It was fine until it started to become less popular electorally, for good reasons.
BNP, incidentally, were promising tax cuts in the Henley By-election once we stop contributing all that money every year to the EU.
The Liberal Democratic Party must be as honest in its assessment of the advantages and disadvantages for the UK of full EU membership as you are about the result of the Henley By-election.
Sesenco
You need to read Chris Rennard’s comments, in which he makes it clear that he believes our position in Henley was significantly improved by then campaign.
If you think we’re going to be able to reproduce that campaign in every seat we currently hold in a general election, fair enough. Or if you think that the “benefit of incumbency” will compensate for the lack of such a campaign – to the extent to which we don’t even need to consider those seats are under threat – fair enough.
On the contrary, I think those seats are under a very acute threat, and the first priority should be defending them, rather than diverting resources towards the will o’ the wisp of gains from Labour.
And your point about Glasgow East is plain ridiculous. I’m talking about Con/Lib Dem marginals, not seats in which the Cons and the Lib Dems came third and fourth!
@Senesco
Sectarianism in Glasgow is wildly exaggerated. You could check out Steve Bruce’s Sectarianism in Scotland or Michael Rosie’s The Sectarian Myth in Scotland for more info.
Anonymous wrote:
“You need to read Chris Rennard’s comments, in which he makes it clear that he believes our position in Henley was significantly improved by then campaign.”
Sure, he did say that. But do remember. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Tories would also have to run comparable campaigns in those Lib Dem seats, while targeting many more seats overall than the Lib Dems.
“And your point about Glasgow East is plain ridiculous.”
I disagree. In May, the Tories failed to make significant breakthroughs in inner city areas where they were weak. But they did increase their vote shares even in wards where they were distant third and fourth (look at the results in Liverpool and Manchester and you will see what I mean). I don’t think they will be able to achieve this in Scotland, but we will soon find out. Cameron has said that winning in inner cities is a priority for his party. Let’s see if he can deliver.
Anax,
If you succeeded in spelling my name correctly I might have reason to listen to your comments. Well, not your comments, but someone else’s, which we can’t discuss because we don’t know what they are.
Sectarianism is still a powerful force in the West of Scotland. It determines where one goes to school and which football team one supports. In the past it also determined how one voted and where one worked, though that is much less true today.
Sectarianism continues to plague Scottish politics. Look at the Monklands saga, as an example (next door to Glasgow East). And the faction fighting in the Scottish Labour Party (why did Donald Dewar and John Reid hate each other’s guts?).
It is, of course, theoretically possible that the Lib Dems could position themselves as the party that transcends sectarianism (as the Alliance Party has done with limited success in Northern Ireland), but we would have to have people on the ground to do that – and we don’t have anybody.
I have family and friends in Glasgow and I know full well that sectarianism lives – as do class hatred and Anglophobia.
Steve Bruce demolishes the ‘Monklands Saga’ in Sectarianism in Scotland. You can read it, or at least bits of it, on Google Books.
Factions in the Labour Party, who ever heard of those?
Anax,
The Monklands Saga was reported fully in “Private Eye” as it played out. I still have all the old copies above me in my loft. (I’m not quite sure how one can “demolish” a saga, but perhaps you will explain.) The SNP tried to exploit the sectarian divide in the Monklands byelection (I forget which “Monklands”), and almost succeeded. There have also been sectarian troubles in the Midlothian Labour Party.
We should select a good candidate and campaign on our core values, show distance not just between ourselves and Labour but ourselves and everyone else. We should not just turn up and go through the motions. That would be an appalling way to treat our supporters.
I wrote:
“You need to read Chris Rennard’s comments, in which he makes it clear that he believes our position in Henley was significantly improved by then campaign.”
Sesenco wrote:
“Sure, he did say that. But do remember. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Tories would also have to run comparable campaigns in those Lib Dem seats, while targeting many more seats overall than the Lib Dems.”
You’re not thinking.
The point is that – according to Rennard, the Tories were further ahead _before_ the campaign. It took a special effort on our part to transform a larger swing from us to the Tories, into a small swing from us to the Tories.
The implication of Rennard’s remarks is that before any of the parties had done anything, the Tories had a larger lead (and a larger swing from us) than they ended up with. And of course, that’s entirely consistent with the national polls.
We are the ones who are going to have to do the running, in order to stand still.
Dane,
I do enjoy your remarkably ill-informed charge of EUphilia against the Liberal Democrats. The fact that we actually have something positive to say (and don’t say it often enough to my mind) does make us fairly unique amongst British political parties.
However, if the Conservatives continue to serve up a false prospectus of talking tough on Europe whilst doing nothing, and UKIP continue to distort everything that Europe does whilst raking in their salary and expenses, then even being a critical friend of the European Union will be made to look like selling out to Europe by people like you.
Most Liberal Democrats believe in the European ideal, a democratic, accountable Union which works towards a freer, fairer society and raises the quality of life for all within a secure framework. That comes with certain losses of sovereignty – almost entirely signed away by the Conservatives – but compensation comes in the form of collective security, access to a larger tariff-free economic area etc etc.
So carry on with your delusions, Dane. If you’re so opposed to the European Union, then join us in calling for the real referendum – in or out – so that we can have the debate in the open, no fences to sit on, nowhere to hide. And let’s see what the British people really want…
‘‘Most of Glasgow East was taken from the Glasgow Baillieston division, . . Baillieston and Mount Vernon actually have a majority of owner-occupiers, a stark contrast to all the other neighbourhoods which are essentially massive post-war council developments of both low- and high-rise nature on either side of the M8 as it sweeps in from Edinburgh.
Many of the peripheral estates have had serious social problems. Housing conditions have been very poor, and few retail or entertainment facilities are provided. Easterhouse was built in fields several miles from the city centre, or from older neighbourhoods where the extended families of residents lived. These have not in the main been happy and stable communities. Despondency and desperation stalk the streets, and degradation seems only just around the corner. There has been serious problems with class A drugs for some years. No wonder that the population has fallen so rapidly. Those who can, leave; and some of the worst housing erected in the 1950s and 1960s has already been knocked down.
. . East has the second highest proportion of ‘social’ rented housing in Scotland (45.8), the third smallest proportion of owner occupiers (despite Mount Vernon and Baillieston) and the lowest percentage of all of residents with higher educational qualifications, at 7.6%. It is still a classic east end seat, and it gave Labour its highest percentage of the vote in any Glasgow seat in 2005.’ [Robert Waller: Almanac of British Politics]
Mark,
I am glad you enjoy my charge of EUphilia. I am sure it is ill-informed, but I wonder in what way?
What is the something positive that you have to say that you are referring to?
I agree with you about the Conservatives, although I will be slightly less unconvinced if they actually do leave the EPP at the next EU elections. UKIP – and indeed BNP and the Greens – are, I believe, making valid criticisms of the EU. Yes, of course the UKIP MEPs rake in their salary and expense, but that is a rather cheap shot on your part, it seems to me.
“A critical friend of the EU”? OK. But I want the UK to leave the EU, as a Liberal, as does UKIP and the BNP. Are you going to leave the argument to them?
The European ideal? My ideal, your ideal, for any country. “A democratic, accountable [country/]union which works towards a freer, fairer society and raises the quality of life for all within a secure framework”. Agreed! Certain losses of sovereignty are involved in any society that is capable of survival, whether of individuals or of countries. But that does not necessarily involve the subjection of individuals to the overall control of a group of others or the submerging of countries into a larger country. The progressive nation state is the best framework for my ideal/your ideal, as above, cooperating appropriately in different ways with others. Collective security is obtained by alliances and keeping the balance of power. Access to a larger tariff-free economic area does not need the little European protectionism and agricultural subsidies of the EU.
What are the delusions to which you refer? I have belonged to your party before. I could again. But not while you are part of the great elite EU establishment gradually tricking us into a single country called Europe, pretending the Lisbon Treaty is not effectively the same (actually it is worse in some respects), even for the UK, than the Constitution for Europe, thereby denying us a promised referendum and then thinking we are all so dumb that it is good enough to offer us another referendum that you think you might win instead of the one you know you would lose.
“Calling for the real referendum” by the LibDem candidate caused great laughter in the hustings in Dorchester Abbey during the Henley By-election, because we all know that in calling for that the LibDems are being frauds and cheats. It is a deceit – resulting from excessive and unrealistic EU zeal – that is eating away at the trust that we ought to be able to have in a liberal party.
Only if the LibDems start to call both for us to leave the EU and for a real referendum – in or out – or stop calling for either – will we know that they are being genuine again.
But if public opinion came to be clearly recognised as being in favour of leaving, I can see the LibDems – “critical friends of the EU” – immediately reneging on another promised referendum.
Chris Squire:
How about telling people in poor areas of Glasgow that you are going to do the following, in the interests of greater equality of opportunity and the wider spread of the private ownership of wealth in each new generation?:
From now on:
We will give every British-born British citizen a basic minimum British Universal Inheritance of 10 % of average wealth in the UK (about £9,000 and £90,000 respectively) at the age of 25, regardless (unlike Baby Bonds) of the fortunes, generosity, investment or savings skills of their parents or family. (Or a tax offset if older than 25).
We will finance this by :
1. Dropping the rate of Inheritance Tax from 40% – with all its scandalous exemptions for agricultural, business and shareholding assets and lifetime gifts for the wealthy – down to a 10% Donor Tax, partly for recording purposes, on all giving and bequeathing of capital – with no exemptions at all.
2. Introducing a new lifetime Unearned Capital Receips Tax on capital received that beneficiaries have done nothing themselves to create, make or save, at progressive rates starting at 10 %.
3. Making the Donor Tax deductible from the Unearned Capital Receipts Tax, so that most people have no tax to pay since it would have been paid already by the donors.
All would receive a basic minimum £9,000 or a net personal lifetime tax free allowance of £90,000, related to receipt rather than to giving or bequeathing, and would be taxed thereafter at progressive rates according to political taste.
British Universal Inheritance was, incidentally, adopted in October 2005 as party policy at the 120th Annual Liberal Party Assembly of the re-formed continuity Liberal Party, which would leave the EU in order to get out of the CAP that pays huge sums every year from ordinary tax payers to landowners who have received their land free of Inheritance Tax.
Right now, many people never inherit any capital at all. Recently Rupert Murdoch gave £50,000,000 to each of his children to be getting on with – which would be tax free if he were a British citizen and lived for another 7 years. How does that fit with the Liberal ideal of Liberty, Property, Security for all?
See http://www.universal-inheritance.org and, in the 1970s, “Inheritance for All” in New Outlook.
@Sesenco
I’ll just quote Bruce directly:
“Four features about Monklandsgate are worth stressing. First, even if true, the original charge says little about sectarianism, because Coatbridge and Airdrie are not respectively Catholic and Protestant. At best the imbalance is only 60:40. Councillors may have been serving their own here, but their own is not defined by religion. Second, the putative villains were Catholics, not Protestants. Third, the accusations of pro-Catholic bias were raised by four Catholic councillors. Fourth, and this is the point that must be stressed, detailed investigations did not support the charges. The local journalist who broke the story concerning investigations into Monklands District Council later complained that the national press had overplayed the sectarian element to give the story a more dramatic edge.”
That it was used in electioneering two years later doesn’t really count for anything. Parties can chase myths just as well, if not better, than reality. I would also add that this took place 16 years ago.
Dane,
Your knowledge and certainty do you credit, although your presumption that your view, and only your view, is the true one is a mite troubling.
How the European Union works should concern us all. The arguments for and against the existence of a Common Agricultural Policy, what it should do and how, if at all, it should be funded, are legitimate points of debate. As an example, the New Zealand farming sector was deprived of subsidy and has become pretty successful. I think that this might be something that the European Union should consider. You might say, and the pessimist in me might agree, that this would be difficult to push through within the EU. Outside it, our farmers would doubtless claim that the absence of subsidy would put our farmers at a competative disadvantage. Would you/we ignore them and risk a significant loss of ‘food security’ or, would we simply replace that element of CAP funding with direct subsidy from our own dear government?
The European Parliament needs to become the pre-eminent forum for European decision making – it is, after all, the only directly elected bit. The decision making itself should be open and transparent – none of this should, I presume meet with the disapproval of Liberals.
But the clear difference between us Dane, is that you have thrown up your hands in disgust and taken the easy opt-out option, whereas Liberal Democrats are prepared to go to Brussels to try to fix it.
Many years ago, I was a member of the Liberal Party, and bloody proud of it I was too. It was a pro-European party then, and we engaged with our European sister parties at all levels. It’s a shame that, if your stance is a representative one, a party calling itself Liberal has lost that internationalist, pro-European tradition.
But it is your astonishing arrogance that leads me to believe that debating with you is futile. The idea that we ‘leave the argument to UKIP and the BNP’ if we don’t come out against Europe is a nonsense. That you believe that we should ignore our philosophical principles in search of popularity as defined by you is difficult enough to swallow, but the fact that you would be amongst the first to attack us for a lack of principles makes me assume that you have no desire for an honest debate, with give and take and an acceptance that opponents might have a point.
Try and persuade if you have the desire to, but a generic mis-representation of our position is hardly likely to achieve your aim.
You take our membership of the EU for granted. I and many others, Liberals and non-Liberals alike, do not. I am free to express this view, which is not a usual point of view within the Liberal Democrat Party.
No one is asking you to abandon the liberal progressive national and international principles which we share, but just to consider the case against our membership of the EU.
Baroness Ashton, closing the Lisbon Treaty Debate used a quotation to express the approach, in favour of Europe, that so many of us agree with –
Europe isn’t easy. It permeates day-to-day life, and like the Galway water system, is ignored unless it vanishes. It is boring. But it works. Imagine if one were to step through a tear in time, and appear in front of some prisoners in Auschwitz or Belsen. Imagine telling them of a Europe at peace, and democratic from Talinn to Galway … an elected parliament and a guarantee that a Pole in Germany or a German in Malta or a Maltese in Sweden can stand up and say ‘I am an EU citizen, and I will be treated as an equal’… A Europe in which French and German … ministers sit in joint cabinet session, elected in free elections … They would call it a fantasy. Yet everyday, 490 million people call it home”.
Dane, I think people merely don’t see the Party’s qualified support for the EU as (a) relevant to every single post on LDV, nor (b) as having an awful lot to do with the Liberal Democrats’ overall level of political support* (indeed, as the Liberal Party is an anti-EU, liberal party and is a practically spent political force, one could determine there is nothing to be gained *electorally* from following your suggestions whatsoever).
*Except for perhaps at European Parliamentary elections.
Anax wrote (inter alia):
“detailed investigations”
Whose detailed investigations were these?
There was no Standards Board in those days.
The influence of sectarianism in public life is very, very hard to measure. But it is real enough. How about the eminent QC who was caught on video singing sectarian songs at a Rangers function? Or the composer, James McMillan, using the platform of the Edinburgh Festival to demand more privileges for the Roman Catholic Church?
An answer to the following question might help: What are the confessional affiliations of the Lord Provosts of Glasgow Corporation over the last 40 years? If the answer reflects the confessional balance in the depopulated city of Glasgow, then one might be entitled to conclude that sectarianism has little influence there.
Then there is the influence of freemasonry, which is far more pervasive in Scotland than it is in England.
My own observations tell me that when Glaswegians meet new people the first thing they want to establish is their religion. It is deeply ingrained in them. People of my mother’s generation shunned Catholics and would certainly never let one in the house. Catholics felt exactly the same way about Protestants, of course. You are not going to tell me this has all vanished in the last 25 years?
Dane, you are overtly projecting your own insecurities onto your LibDem opponents because you take for granted the wider subject which you raise – your accusations are a manifestation of your own inconsistency and a simple inversion of the political formula you clearly promote.
By applying your logic to other levels of political organisation you’d cede Oxfordshire from England and Henley from Oxfordshire – at what point are you prepared to accept your own logic?
Surely it makes more sense to make the choice for coherence and accept the democratic position for unity by resolving to stop any in-fighting and recognise common purpose.
If you are liberal you will know that you can’t survive in a party of one. Currently you disagree that you agree when it’d be far more productive for you to join us while accepting it is possible to agree to disagree.
Anonymous wrote:
“You’re not thinking.”
Personal abuse does nothing to improve the quality of your argument.
Henley was entirely consistent with the May elections. Good for the Tories, very bad for Labour and a standstill for the Lib Dems.
However, if we look at May more closely we see that where the Lib Dems have MPs, or are close challengers, the vote remained firm or improved.
Now, supposing the Henley byelection had taken place in Guildford of Eastbourne?
‘Grammar Fed Up’
Of course the party’s support (how qualified?) for the EU is not relevant to every single post on LDV. However, the EU referendum issue and the way it identified LibDem support for the EU at the cost of honesty and integrity made many people angry and was relevant to the very bad LibDem performance, FOR A BY-ELECTION, in the Henley constituency in which I live. That was in spite of the party’s apparent deliberate avoidance of that and other national issues.
Until relatively recently I have only ever voted Liberal or LibDem. But because I love my country, the EU is an issue that means that the Liberal Democratic Party is nowadays almost the last party that I consider voting for. For you to hold the balance of power at Westminster (you would have taken us into the Euro, disastrously, and no doubt stll would) would nowadays be the last thing that I would want. You may think that the issue is irrelevant except perhaps at European Elections. However I do not believe that I am as unusual in my opinion – outside your party – as you seem to think. The reason why I have emphasised the issue – while mentioning others – is because – crucially apart from that – I wish you well.
The Liberal Party is indeed small at present, for historical reasons – and to me it has been very interesting and a great relief to discover that they had become as EU-sceptic as I had become. But there are nowadays other EU-sceptic parties like the Greens, UKIP and the BNP, who will be alternatives to what I have not been convinced from this blog are not the EU-fanatic LibDems. So I think that unless you turn into a protest party against the EU that you will continue to decline. From what I have read on this blog I cannot see you doing that. So there it is. On to the next By-election. Time for me to move on too. Au revoir Oranjepan! – whose latest post I have just seen but who I hope will forgive me if I do not reply. I do not really know why I bothered to make a couple of other suggestions apart from focusing on the EU. Basically I think that from now on you are on a hiding to nothing, unless you really do start being realistic about the EU and its unsuitability for our country.
Of course, I may be wrong, as may we all.
Sesenco
Personal abuse? If you think that’s personal abuse, you must have led an extremely sheltered life!
But you really aren’t thinking, I’m afraid.
It’s no good our vote being “at a standstill” if the Tory vote is going up. That’s a swing to the Tories, and it means lost seats.
Currently the polls would indicate, on average, a swing from us to the Tories of, say, 8% or so. Ok, maybe we’ll do somewhat better where we have sitting MPs, but only up to a point.
On these polls, we are looking at significant losses to the Tories. What good does it do to stick your head in the sand and refuse to admit it?
Its a pity that the best sugestio on this thread has had only one advocate so far. (Bernard Salmon) Scotland has three of its for levels of governence lected by PR. two of tose thre are by list systems that we don’t seem to be that good at. If we seem doomd to experience third party squeeze here and will probably lose our deposit then we should experiment.
1. how about some literature that will disinterest 99.9% of the electorate but may actually attract members and activists? the political phenomenon of our time is the RSPB having more members than the 3 big parties combined and doubled. radicalism and core principles n Focus are not what wins FPTP elections but as we aren’t going to win anyway why not experiment with recruitmen ?
2. Can we not attempt to campaign by mosiac catergory/demographics than by focus round ? with an eye to future list elections fought on much bigger regions. Single issues? values ? branding? something bigger than pot holes.
3. given the poverty of the seat and looking at the effect easterhouse had on IDS and thinking behind the “Break Down” Britain report and like us to adopt a projct or charity. All by elections should have a legacy. I thought this during the long weeks of Hartlepool. If we don’t win what will we have achieved when the cicus leaves town? We can’t send a neo colonial force of largely middle class and largely english activists into a place like this and just deliver leaflets. Even if they never ever vote for us there must be uge sections of civil society that would benefit rom an infusion of experience, ideas and person hours that we could offer.
Anonymous,
Once again I ask you to look at what happened in May.
Did the Tories take control of Cheltenham Borough Council? Did they hold their last seat in Dore and Totley? How many councillors did they get elected in Chris Huhne’s constituency? And what happened to the much anticipated wipe-out in Winchester?
It is Tories like yourself (?) who are being complacent. Long may it continue!
Sesenco
“It is Tories like yourself (?) who are being complacent.”
It seems it’s only a matter of time before anyone who tries to be realistic here is accused of being a Tory.
For the record, my formative years were spent under Margaret Thatcher; I’ve never voted Tory in my life, and I’ve been an active member of the Liberal Democrats for more than 20 years.
But I think it’s fairly clear that any attempt at serious discussion here is going to be drowned out by the cheer-leading brigade. If that’s the way you want it, fine.
But you’ll find that sticking your head in the sand isn’t a good strategy for self-preservation in the long run.
Anonymous,
So I was wrong. My apologies. You are a paid-up member of the “I told you so” Party.
Your technique is to make assertions, repeat them ad infinitum, and refuse to engage with counter arguments.
How about answering my four questions (above)?
Lib Dems in key seats are clearly not being complacent, because they have succeeded in holding back any Tory advance.
Sesenco
What I’m saying isn’t just an “assertion”. The opinion polls nationally indicate a swing of about 8% from us to the Tories. Of course there will be local variations, and we may do better to some extent in seats we hold, but clearly there is a prospect of significant losses to the Tories at the next general election, and what I am arguing is that in allocating resources the first priority should be trying to avoid that, rather than chasing the illusory prospect of “30+ gains from Labour”.
And listing four (!) local authorities where we did better in the local elections than the national opinion polls might imply isn’t a “counter argument”. It’s more like whistling in the dark.
Anonymous,
You have contradicted yourself at least twice.
Firstly, you admit that there will be local variations, but when I point to four of those variations you call that “whistling in the dark” (as though you can wave a magic wand of cause the data to go away).
Secondly, you tell us that we should be targeting Labour, but then in the next breath assert that 30+ gains from Labour is illusory.
An illustration of the point I have been hammering home is to be found in St Albans. In May, the Lib Dem holds and gains were all within the “target” St Albans Parliamentary constituency. The Lib Dem vote floundered in the “non-target” constituencies of Hitchin & Harpenden and Welwyn & Hatfield.
And move a few miles west to Watford (another “target”). Again, the Tories failed to make any ground against the Lib Dems, either in the Watford or the Three Rivers bits.
You may fervently hope that our vote collapses en masse to the Tories, but the evidence on the ground suggests this is not going to happen, at least not in the places where it counts.
Sesenco
“You have contradicted yourself at least twice.
Firstly, you admit that there will be local variations, but when I point to four of those variations you call that “whistling in the dark” (as though you can wave a magic wand of cause the data to go away).”
On the contrary, you’re trying to ignore the message of the national opinion polls by pointing to a few examples of local authority elections where we’ve done better than the national polls would indicate.
There will always be local variations, but unless the national polls are badly wrong, they are variations against the background of a strong swing in favour of the Tories.
“Secondly, you tell us that we should be targeting Labour, but then in the next breath assert that 30+ gains from Labour is illusory.”
No, the poster who talked about 30+ gains from Labour is the one I was disagreeing with. If you check above, you’ll see I said s/he was in the realms of fantasy.
I’m saying the main danger is losses to the Tories, and the strategy of going on the attack against Labour to try to compensate for these losses is – psephologically – nonsensical.
That’s true even with the polls as they are now, because they indicate only a tiny swing from Labour to us. It will be even more true if there is a degree of recovery by Labour before the next election.
I would ruthlessly squeeze the Labour vote and Conservative vote, but leave the SNP votes in place. We probably cannot win this election, but as far as I am concerned an SNP win is almost as good as it will further destabilise the government and put Gordon Brown out of office.
Matt Severn,
An SNP victory would also be seen as an endorsement for the raising of the legal drinking age to 25 (sorry, 21) in Scotland, leading to Brown and his gang doing the same in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In 1970, Parliament settled upon a universal age of majority of 18. Salmond, an unprincipled opportunist of the highest order, is seeking to unravel this advance in human freedom.
No-one who values civil liberties and human dignity should give this s**mbag the slightest succour.
i dont quite think that the drinking age being raised is the impositon you think it is. If there are too many 18/19 year olds getting drunk and causing damage, limiting their access is not an unreasonable idea (unworkable maybe)
Matt Severn,
You are clearly in the wrong party.
Senseco – do you advocate lowering the drinking age in line with reality to promote the freedom so many already exercise without control?
A Scottish by-election is always going to be a slightly different prospect from an English one because of the 4-party sytem, but Glasgow East could actually be a very good test bed for some of the anti-Labour campaigning we’re going to need in the next few years.
As a campaigning machine, the Lib Dems need to be turned through almost 180 degrees. We have spent 20-odd years able to smash big Tory majorities where they have been strong due to the Conservative’s national unpopularity. If henley had hapened in 1998 instead of 2008 we might have got a Newbury- or Christchurch-like result.
As it is, with a resurgent Tory party, Henley was the equivilent of trying to win in Manchester, Sheffield, the Welsh valleys or somewhere similarly rock-solid Labour in the mid 90s.
The first step ought to be to decide the parameters. What is a good result? A win is always great but realistically, The SNP have more of a chance. We CAN, however, hope for a 2nd placing.
Messaging. What do people want and what do we stand for? I think the big themes for fighting Labour in the future have already been mentioned on the thread:
Tax – We want to tax the poor less and let them spend their own money. Campaign on council tax/LIT, cutting income tax or Brown’s 10p scam.
Equality – Whether you want to deal with sectarianism, Souter, the realities of immigration or the new Legalised Racism bill – We should be making equal rights our distinctive issue.
Regeneration – Go to the vast majority of Labour’s inner city heartlands and look around you. Many of these areas are desperate for renewal, either in housing, transport, green areas or the good old Lib Dem street-sweeping.
None of this is rocket science, of course, but it’s really just born out of a revulsion at some of the by-election campaigns I’ve seen (from all parties) which are clearly not based on those parties beliefs or what is right but just designed to incite fear or anger.
If we went into Glasgow East talking sense about respect in our communities, alleviating poverty or giving people their local areas back, I’d actually WANT to make the journey because as a Lib Dem it’s the kind of campaign I’d be proud to be a part of. And in Labour heartlands south of the border, it’ll work too.
I also agree with the legacy issue. We need to decide what Glasgow East would be left with after the byelection team has all gone home: data, a ward/wards worked that hadn’t been done, groundwork for 2009/2011? But the vital thing is that the decision needs to be based on what THEY actually need and ask for.
Orangepan wrote:
“Senseco – do you advocate lowering the drinking age in line with reality to promote the freedom so many already exercise without control?”
Yes. I think 16 is probably the most realistic cut-off point.
If we accept that the ability to purchase alcohol is a fundamental human right, then there have to be very pressing grounds for placing restrictions on it. The fact that a minority uses a right in a harmful way is hardly justification of depriving the majority of that right.
The recent clampdowns have certainly had unintended consequences. It would surely be preferable for young people to drink alcohol in pubs and bars where they can at least be seen than in bus shelters and darkened parks.
Yesterday, I saw a notice in a pub window announcing that anyone who appears to be under the age of 25 (!!) will be required to show proof of identity. We really are heading towards the dreaded Orwellian police state.
By the way, I’m a teetotaller.
as a teetotaller you are speaking of something you do not understand.
I am a drinker, but I would never say that the right to drink alcohol is a universal human right.
And I am not in the wrong party. I think perhaps you are- have you considered the Monster Raving Loony Party?
Don’t you think that some form of tiered system where alcohol is available at different ages according to it’s strength, rather than trying to enforce a one size fits all strategy?
Matt Severn,
I know perfectly well what drinking is and have done it myself, thank you very much.
Yes, you are in the wrong party. You are an authoritarian conservative who considers that rights should be given only to those who deserve them. Rather in the manner of a Victorian schoolmaster.
“…only to those you consider deserve them”, I meant to say.
You appear to be in the same philosophical territory as Roger Scruton and Adrian Rogers.
Oranjepan,
The binge drinking problem has been exacerbated by (a) the proliferation of mega pubs and (b) the declining relative cost of liquor, not because 18-21 year-olds are inherently wicked and in need of a good thrashing as the target audience for these draconian measures likes to think.
I have no problem with banning things that are inherently wrong. Drinking alcohol, however, is morally neutral, and in moderation not even harmful.
Whether or not staggering the age limits would be workable I am not in a position to judge. The result might just be a load of confusing notices pinned up on bar architraves.
Split it up you two, we need everyone we can get – it’s not a question of beliefs, its a question of action.
Senseco, I’m surprised you question whether using the system to educate people is workable since we already have it to a limited extent with food orders and under parental supervision in pubs.
It is always worth pointing out to a Tory who mouths off about young people binge-drinking that it was the 1987 TCP Use Classes Order (enacted as part of Thatcher’s “deregulation” drive) that led to the proliferation of mega pubs.
What works for some doesn’t work for all.
So if we’re looking for a methodology which is all-encompassing (whether regarding alcohol consumption or choosing an approach for by-election strategy) we need to have a plan for all situations so as to be prepared with all eventualities.
Like Nick Clegg says “there are no one-size-fits-all solutions”.
I think we should allow the Campaigns Dept/Rennard to decide the approach to the by election. After all they are the people who are responsible for the stunning wins in the past that everyone is now bemoaning the lack of.
They do no throw £100k at every By-election as some seem to think, but instead they make a calm decision of what they want to achieve and what it will take in terms of money and resources to achieve that. Sometimes this will involve spending large amounts to fight off a squeeze and stay in third, rather than fourth, while sometimes it will involve going for victory. Have a little trust. The whole department, from Rennard down are very, very skilled in my view and I trust them to do the right thing each and every time.
Some of the comments here remind me very much of politicians interfereing with the day to day running of schools and hopsitals that we as a party are so opposed to.
Benjamin.
Your contribution was very well argued. Our expectations for this seat will not be high but we must put in a reasonable and reasoned effort to maintain what support we have in this constituency and get them out to vote. A low turn out is very likely and a campaign on the lines you suggest might produce a better outcome than expected.
Regarding sectarianism, I would say it is becoming a thing of the past. People tend to dwell on what little there is (confirmation bias) rather than the bigger picture.
Report for Glasgow City Council
The report emphasizes the large difference between perceptions of sectarianism and personal experience/attitudes. For example, 83% of respondents would not mind one bit if a close family member married a different religion, with only 3% minding a great deal.
Regarding Glasgow East, I am absolutely desparate for Labour to lose. This is the kind of place that has been really let down over the last ten years, its economic demographics are appalling.
Whilst I would vote Lib Dem if I was a constituent, and would campaign for the party if I had time (I don’t), I can’t say I would mind if the SNP won. Scottish Labour represents the very worst of the Labour Party in talent, ability, policy and clearly ethics. It’s demise must be hastened.
I’ve never been a member of any political party though I have campaigned for Lib and Lab (Stirling: think Michael Forsyth, not Labour)
There would be no demand for independence if we had better government from Westminster. Half a century ago I argued with Donald Dewar about the failings, customs and traditions of the Westminster parliament.
His answer was that a Home Rule parliament could be a model for the reform of Westminster.
If the nationalists are going to campaign on the constitutional issue, why not take the opportunity for airing the LibDem view, PrR, federal UK etc.?
One thing you should not do is campaign on devolved issues. That’s irrelevant and part of the Westminster confrontational culture. (they prefer their Oxbridge debating games to serious politics).
The second thing not to do, as any salesman would tell you, is avoid the crass error of rubbishing the competition. Others do it: see above re Oxbridge.