Questions on the Doorstep
Friday, April 15, 2005

There's a new election campaign poster up on my home turf of Portslade. This one is different from the rest as it's one for the Liberal Democrats.

This set a bell ringing. Some of you may have read this post describing a canvassing visit my partner and I had last Sunday from New Labour candidate, Celia Barlow.

During her visit, Celia told us that Paul Elgood, the Liberal Democrat candidate, was not campaigning in Hove and Portslade but instead helping in the Lewes constituency.

The appearance of the poster seems to contradict this so I emailed the Liberal Democrat campaign team for confirmation. Paul Elgood emailed me himself unequivocally denying what Celia had said:

We are working hard in this constituency and fighting for every Lib Dem vote. Lewes is a held seat for the Lib Dems and they don't need outside help, as we have to aim to increase the vote and win in other constituencies. I am working flat out here and aim to double the vote.

Celia's comments are very dishonest.

Paul also left a comment to that effect on this blog here.

Celia's assertion was also contradicted in this article about the Hove constituency on the politics.co.uk website last Monday, which said:

In 2001, the 3,800 people who voted Liberal Democrat were the difference between Labour on 19,000 and the Conservatives on 16,000. This time round, Elgood aims to double the Liberal Democrat vote; if he can do so, he will wipe out Labour's majority, and the Lib Dem vote will determine the outcome of the election.

He says the Liberal Democrats are putting in "triple, quadruple" the resources they put into previous elections and will be fighting for every vote in a way they never have before. That will allow them to pick up on what he calls a "groundswell" of feeling among groups - pensioners, the intelligentsia, students, people opposed to the war in Iraq - who are dissatisfied with Labour but not willing to turn to the Conservatives.

"In Hove, they can afford to have a protest, a by-election style protest and I think that'll come to us in big numbers," he says.

So which is it? The New Labour candidate says the Liberal Democrats aren't campaigning in Hove. The Liberal Democrat candidate says emphatically that they are.

I spoke to someone in the Electoral Services department at Brighton & Hove City council about it. I didn't name any names, simply saying, "A candidate said this about another candidate who subsequently denied it." Their response was interesting.

Nominations for candidates wishing to stand in the constituency do not close until April 19. Until that date nobody is officially standing at the election in Hove. You can campaign even if you are not yet officially standing. If something similar were to happen after April 19 Electoral Services would take the matter in hand but only to refer it to their senior contact at the party against who the accusation has been made. But where does this leave Celia's assertion that Paul Elgood is not campaigning?

I emailed Celia twice this week, once on Wednesday and yesterday, where I put my cards on the table, explained who I was and what I intended to do:

I shall be looking to write about this matter on my site later today. I realise you must be extremely busy with your camapign but I want to give you the right of reply and would be grateful for a comment from you or your agent to add the proper balance.

I received a reply today in which she said:

Sorry about the delay in replying. As you say I am very busy. However, following your email I contacted Paul Elgood. I realised I was misinformed and I have apologised to him.

I'd be very interested to know who misinformed Celia and why. This erroneous impression has come from somewhere either through a misunderstanding or, possibly, something more malicious. I also wonder if campaigns can afford for their candidates to be misinformed in this way. Rival camps are looking to score big points - witness the furore over Ed Matts and his doctored photos.

Now, I realise that the anti-New Labour sentiment expressed on this weblog, and my association with the tactical-voting campaign Backing Blair might tarnish me in the eyes of some in this matter. A casual scroll through the site though will tell you that I enjoy giving the Tories stick with as much, if not more, relish than I do New Labour. When Blair goes, I'll be a Labour voter again.

Despite my "affiliation", another casual scroll will show you that my coverage of the election in Hove so far has been even-handed: here, here, here, here and here.

So that said, I'm not grinding an axe here. But this is a marginal constituency where the incumbent party has a shaky majority. Telling voters, without checking the veracity of what we now know to be just a rumour, that a rival party isn't bothering to campaign is misleading, wrong and potentially damaging to that rival campaign.

Can we be expected to believe that Celia was unaware of the impact her words might have on both the views of floating voters and, by extension, both her and the Liberal Democrat's election campaigns?

How many other people told the same might think: "If they can't be bothered to campaign, why should I bother to vote for them?" And how is this impression to be corrected? Don't New Labour have big enough issues on trust without this happening on the doorstep?

I'd be chasing this just as much if such a comment had come from another party's candidate. I dropped my psuedonym on this blog to prove I stand by what I've written here - so there can be no accusations of me hiding anything and my dealings with the parties involved cannot be construed as anything else other than above board.

This isn't about is trying to land a blow on an election candidate with who I don't agree. This is about fair play and, without trying to sound grand, the democratic process.


9 Comments:

On April 15, 2005 6:28 PM, Blogger Tim Worstall said...

Umm, if nominations haven’t closed yet, are any of them yet candidates? Aren’t they all prospective candidates?  


On April 15, 2005 6:37 PM, Blogger Justin said...

How about this: You're trying to get to an interview for a job. You're running late so you phone ahead to say so. The message gets garbled and another candidate for the job is asked to tell those doing the interviewing that you're not coming. They decide to strike you off the list.

How pissed off would you be? How pissed off would the employer be when he finds out he's missed out on a good candidate?  


On April 15, 2005 7:07 PM, Blogger BB said...

Well there are conspiracies and there are cock-ups. If a bit of info passes along a chain it can acquire credibility it doesn't deserve, so if someone tells you something incredible, ask "How sure are you?" and hope the person is honest enough to say "not 100%" or to try to backtrack. I think we spend our lives working on info we've heard from other people, and telling people things we're not that sure about.

Unless you knew who first mentioned the Lewes idea I can't see there's any point in pursuing this. Celia's apologised and that should be enough. We could spend our lives putting apologies in the local paper.  


On April 16, 2005 10:59 AM, Blogger Justin said...

And I'd agree with you BB if we were voting for the president of the 6th Form Chess Club but Celia wants to be my elected representative in the House of Commons.

A House, need I remind you, that voted for a war in which thousands of people were needlessly killed and a measure that sees people imprisoned without trial and without public scrutiny of any evidence against them. You'll have to forgive me if I think these people should be held to a higher standard.

And how do I find out who started the rumour? Being a member of the campaign I don't suppose you'd feel inclined to find out for me. I'm just some insignificant voter Celia needs onside right now not Jon Snow. If Celia had said this in a newspaper or on TV and not to some no-mark on the doorstep I wonder how much more fuss there might be.

Still, let's draw a line under it and move on shall we? People are more interested in asylum and health rather than potential MPs passing on damaging gossip to the electorate.  


On April 16, 2005 5:40 PM, Blogger Jarndyce said...

A fascinating post, and as you know I generally agree with you on most things, but this is where I part company:

_When Blair goes, I'll be a Labour voter again._

I don't understand how you can think the problem is just Blair. When he goes, there will still be Clarke, still be Straw, still be Hain, still be the New Labour sheep mentality among MPs. There will be another Mandelson, another Campbell. Blunkett will be back; maybe Milburn will be PM. We'll still get ID cards, still have forgotten the 'ethical foreign policy' that lasted until someone shady fancied a few warplanes, still won't tackle faith schools. They won't be repealing those 'special measures' on detention without trial, will they? Direct taxes won't suddenly rise to fund a drop in regressive indirect taxation. PPP won't be shelved. In fact, probably the only thing getting rid of Blair will do is remove the last obstacle to proper Lords reform. Important, sure; but a small piece in a huge malignant jigsaw.

Yes, Blair is a part of all this, the leader even, but it's not just about him. In fact, if people like you go back to NuLab when Tony hangs up his boots, his departure will have done more damage than good. Time to kiss them goodbye for ever, not for a couple of years. That's why I can't endorse Backing Blair.  


On April 17, 2005 12:10 AM, Blogger BB said...

Don't mean to be obstructive, but if I had as much access as that, the Hove Labour blog would be far more useful and interesting than it is. Sigh.  


On April 18, 2005 9:31 AM, Anonymous David Duff said...

New Labour Tells Lies! Shock, Horror!

Yawns cavernously, and even wonders, in desperation, what's on the telly.

Also wonder where you've been for the last eight years!  


On April 18, 2005 11:04 AM, Blogger BB said...

Were you born in 1997, David?  


On April 18, 2005 12:26 PM, Anonymous David David said...

No.

And neither do I get your point.  


Post a Comment




Links to this post:

Create a Link


Home