Let’s not chase shadows from Oldham East

By Darrell Goodliffe

Our result in Oldham East & Saddleworth was impressive. Initially, I had thought the damage done by Phil Woolas would prove to be irreparable in such a short time. In other circumstances things may have been trickier (notably, had the Liberal Democrats not been entangled in David Cameron’s web) but nonetheless I am happy to have been proved wrong.

Of course, we are right to be pleased with our performance (although I do feel the bouquet of flowers before the result was declared went too far) and equally its right not to get carried away.

I believe a desire to keep us grounded is what motivated Mark Ferguson’s piece and, on one level, I support his intent. However, I do disagree with some of his arguments and this is not unimportant because our assessment of what has happened necessarily conditions our view of future tactics.

Mark analyses what happened to the Liberal Democrat vote totally out-of-context:

The Lib Dem vote held up.

In fact, the Lib Dem vote share actually rose by 0.4% from to last May. This wasn’t supposed to happen. The Lib Dems are, after all, down to single figures in the national polls. They’re propping up a government that is implementing policies that are in many ways the polar opposite to the ones they were elected on last year.

Yet their vote still held up, under the intense scrutiny of a by-election campaign.

All true, up to a point. This was a by-election where the Liberal Democrat vote holding up is not as ‘odd’ as it first seems. Elwyn Watkins had, in many minds, been ‘cheated’ of his rightful victory by Phil Woolas. Therefore a sympathetic hearing amoung those who voted Liberal Democrat last time was to be expected. It is simply not as surprising as Mark makes out that these people ignored national factors and returned to sympathetically vote for Watkins. The number of ‘switchers’ from the Liberal Democrats to Labour was bound to be lower and does not provide us with an accurate snapshot of the national mood – even so it still seems about of 1/3 of the Liberal Democrat vote switched to Labour which in the context is actually very high.

Mark is therefore likely to have overemphasised the number of Conservative to Liberal Democrat switchers. Yes, the Conservative vote collapsed but the turnout was 13% lower than at the general election. Seeing the lacklustre Conservative campaign could well have encouraged their voters to stay at home. Labour’s vote also increased and it’s not implausible that local Conservatives, used to trading blows with the Liberal Democrats, switched to Labour in protest at the coalition.

Also, is it not likely that those Conservatives that *did switch* will simply loan their votes to the Liberal Democrats because it was a *by-election*? I find it distinctly unlikely that these voters will stick with the Liberal Democrats for the long-term because they are Conservatives, not Liberal Democrats and it’s quite clear that the Conservative right and Liberal Democrat left will simply not allow the continuation of this formation beyond the lifespan of this government.

All of these factors are simply not explored by Mark who has already made his mind-up. He therefore creates something of a bugaboo with his ‘anti-Labour/Pro-Coalition alliance’. Even if Mark was entirely right (I don’t think he is) and this is the entire explanation I would say this clearly to the comrade; they took us on and they *lost* and they lost badly actually. So, let’s keep our feet on the ground and lets realise we are still a work in progress but please let’s not create bugaboos and start chasing shadows.