The Oldham East and Saddleworth result
The Times headline this morning on early Manchester editions spoke of the Liberal Democrats being humiliated. While the Guardian headline called it a "blow to Clegg".
Sorry, I can't agree. These headlines looked as if they were written before the result was known. If I was Nick Clegg I'd be quietly satisfied with last night's figures. The result could have been far, far worse.
Indeed, the Lib Dems narrowly increased their share of the vote since May - from 31.6 per cent to 31.9 per cent. That's in stark contrast to the Lib Dem support in national opinion polls since May, which have seen Lib Dem support more than halved.
The result will give Lib Dem morale a much-needed boost ahead of the far more important Scottish, Welsh and local polls in May.
Before Christmas, I thought there was a strong possibility that Elwyn Watkins would indeed be humiliated in Oldham East and Saddleworth. But he benefitted from a strong personal vote, as placards and leaflets promoted "Elwyn" rather than the Liberal Democrats.
Indeed, a visiting Martian might have thought it was the Elwyn Party. Watkins was by far the best known of the contenders, and many voters admired his courage and persistence in the way he successfully challenged Phil Woolas in court. He increasingly impressed me as a candidate, and deserves a seat in Parliament.
The big question today is what happened to the Conservative campaign? In other circumstances they could have leapfrogged the Lib Dems. David Cameron was the first Tory Prime Minister ever to campaign in a by-election, but that was probably a token gesture to hide the half-hearted nature of their campaign.
Before Christmas Cameron was telling people that he had "ordered" every Conservative member of his Cabinet to go and campaign in the seat. That didn't happen. Fewer than half of them actually went. Did they disobey him, or was his order rescinded?
The Conservative literature was atrocious. And their messages were confusing. Party chairman Baroness Warsi made it clear this week - including on Newsnight on Wednesday - that they'd be happy to come third.
One could argue that all three party leaders will be happy this morning.
Ed Miliband because Labour won quite comfortably with a big increase in vote-share.
Nick Clegg because he got a respectable vote. And Cameron and some of his advisers may quietly be satisfied because he's strengthened the Coalition by rejuvenating the Lib Dems at a time when the pressure seemed to be mounting against Clegg.
But every move that keeps the Lib Dems happy only upsets Tory activists and backbenchers, as we are already seeing today.
As I keep saying, the interesting story in this Coalition is not so much what's happening with the Lib Dems, but the growing sense of frustration and betrayal on the Tory right.
It will be interesting to see when the by-election expense returns are submitted over the next 30 days whether the Conservatives actually spent up to their full expense limit, as one would expect in a winnable by-election.
Election expenses can easily be massaged of course, though normally by-election agents massage their spending down to come within the limit. This could be the first case in electoral history where a party pretends it spent more than it actually did!
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 14th Jan 2011, barriesingleton wrote:SO THEY LOST - APPEALED - AND LOST.
Um - some might suggest the appeal was ill founded?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 14th Jan 2011, PompeyOops wrote:What a stupid comment 'deserves a seat in parliment'
You win a seat it is not given to anyone.
Did Crick show his political collies in this blog?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 14th Jan 2011, barriesingleton wrote:THE OLD PERSONALITY/POLICY DEBATE
It is commonplace for Westminster politicians to complain that PERSONALITIES (especially flawed ones) should not be scrutinised, only the POLICIES they purport to further.
WHY THEN did ONE HUNDRED TORY POLITICIANS AND THE PM go to Sad and Old? Was the message to large or complex, that a massive team was needed? Or was it that no one told the prancing ninnies that PERSONALITY IS PANTS, so they all went to inflict their PERSONAL magic on the voters?
These Westminster Wallies are not very bright are they.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 14th Jan 2011, Mike Sivier wrote:While Mr Crick's comment about the Liberal Democrats' share of the vote is correct, it hides the fact that they lost 3,000 votes between last May and yesterday. Fewer people actually turned out to vote at this by-election.
Furthermore, I think it likely that many voters decided to support the Lib Dems rather than the Tories this time round, which is one reason the Conservative vote dropped by a massive 14 per cent. If it hadn't been for all the disillusioned former Lib Dem voters who defected to Labour, Mr Watkins might have got the seat this columnist believes he deserves!
Having said that, Mr Crick is right about the headlines. It was indeed a blow to Clegg, but it was a far worse blow to Cameron. The people have spoken - and they don't like what he's doing!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 14th Jan 2011, stevie wrote:you called it wrong Michael...be humble enough to apologise...Labour never 'sneaked' it..they battered the opposition and for the wasting of 2000 jobs in your native city you should feel a slight feeling of 'well. what did you expect'....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 14th Jan 2011, worcesterjim wrote:5 too right stevie ...Labour are heading for power again just as soon as we have tired of the latest regime to be foisted on us.....and let`s think what difference that will make when surely it`s obvious that whatever "party" assumes "power" the financial markets and American foreign policy imperatives will continue to control how they behave?
Come on stevie....this parrot is dead!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 15th Jan 2011, stevie wrote:you are right the financial markets do control everything...so what does that make us? The guy who sussed this one out over a hundred and fifty years ago was Karl Marx but we are too timid, scared to put what he advocated into practice, even Keynes recognised this...so we are stuck with it for another hundred years, maybe when we meet meltdown for the hundredth time we may er, change??
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 15th Jan 2011, worcesterjim wrote:I think that we have far more chance of making a sensible transformation than ever stevie.....but leave it another generation and the entire population of Britain and America will be so undereducated and indoctrinated with nonsense about the glories of free market capitalism that we won`t stand a chance for longer than a hundred years.
Pop over to Mark Mardell`s blog and see the future for Britain...with a completely brainwashed brutalised population.... with no grasp of political philosophy and an addiction to adversarial competitive mud slinging which has replaced any sensible political debate on what issues they are still allowed to discuss.
All it would take is for our rather creepy global middle class to stop worshipping money and bending their knee to whichever crook or parsasite or thug posses it.... and we could still have a New Enlightenment....rather than another world war.
But only our OLDER generation have the grasp of political and economic and social philosophy to free us.
The young live in a sort of British Arizona of their own...and a few minutes of Eastenders or Graham Norton or Slagsin the City will tell you they are not the stuff of which revolutionaries are made!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 15th Jan 2011, barriesingleton wrote:THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE, UNDER THE 'RULE OF LAW', TELLS ALL.
I am still chasing all and sundry for a definitive ruling on the truth of this statement (below) taken from a conservative election flyer. The Woolas fiasco has come and gone, with no 'full force of the law' that I can detect. And short of going to the police, no one will touch this. (I have now tried Baroness Warnock to no avail - that's in addition to Baroness Kennedy. How naive can I get?) See what you think.
鈥淭HE CONSERVATIVES MUST WIN HERE TO STOP 5 MORE YEARS OF GORDON BROWN鈥
At the time of distribution:
1/ The Westminster term was flexible 鈥 not 5 Years.
2/ Even if Labour won (against ill feeling in labour ranks) Brown鈥檚 chances of a full tenure were minimal.
3/ Any LibDems returned, had an identical effect on Brown鈥檚 chances to Conservatives returned.
4/ Even if Conservatives use of 鈥榟ere鈥 means 鈥榠n UK鈥, points 1 and 2 still stand.
5/ Taking 鈥榟ere鈥 to mean a given constituency, the claim depends on too many uncontrollable variables, across the rest of the country, to stand.
6/ Had a poor Conservative result led to LibDem coalition with Labour, departure of Brown was known to be the 鈥榩rice鈥.
7/ Had LibDems won outright, Brown was not in the frame.
8/ With the above claim proved a lie 鈥 a lie intended to influence voting behaviour - section 115 of The Representation of the People Act is invoked, and the election may prove void.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 15th Jan 2011, worcesterjim wrote:Relax Barrie...they don`t run the country...just think of a gang of Bertie Woosters on one side and the Italian Mafia on the other....and be grateful that the Americans run the entire show without reference to any of them.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)