 | 'It isn't usual to celebrate a massacre, unexpected or otherwise. But we have no hesitation at all in proclaiming the result of the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election as a terrific outcome that is good for British democracy.' Sunday Herald Editorial, 12 th February 2006. |  |
It isn't usual to celebrate a massacre, unexpected or otherwise. But we have no hesitation at all in proclaiming the result of the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election as a terrific outcome that is good for British democracy.
That Labour didn't see this coming Ð in an age when doorstep polls can usually be relied upon to flag up whenever a party's vote is not holding up Ð shows the extent of how out of touch and complacent this party is.
Between last May and last Thursday, Labour managed to misplace an 11,500 majority and gift the seat to a Liberal Democrat party said to be in a state of disarray following Charles Kennedy's departure. A majority reduced by one won't affect the immediate arithmetic of Westminster, but, as we advocated in our opinions in the run-in to the general election last year, any move which reduces Labour's majority should be welcomed.
Last May's result gave Labour a larger majority than we believed was necessary to shock Tony Blair out of his complacency. This result at least takes the process further, and it will put renewed pressure on the government for a substantial rethink, if not by Downing Street itself, then at least by those in senior posts who keep Blair's administration in place.
If the Cabinet and Number 10 are slightly less comfortable this weekend than they were last week, that is a good thing. But already the noises we hear, the excuses being made, are not good. Certainly, local issues played a substantial role in this by-election. Local issues always do. Electorates take the chance to feel important about their own territory and to lodge a protest vote when they are called on simply to choose an MP, and not help choose a government.
But it would be a farce to insist, as some ministers have, that this was all about local issues. Neither is it justified to claim that tensions between Scotland's First Minister Jack McConnell and Gordon Brown were the root cause. Yes, there were territorial tensions, first thrown into the spotlight by Brown . But was the controversy over the Forth Road Bridge enough to bring about a 16% swing from Labour to the LibDems? Absolutely not.
Gordon Brown was the dominant personality of this by-election in this, his personal fiefdom. His neighbour and Cabinet colleague, Alistair Darling, often touted as a future chancellor in a Brown administration, officially ran the Labour campaign. The defeat reflects badly on both men. If Darling can't run a campaign in a Labour stronghold, can he run the Treasury? If Brown can't win in his own backyard, can he win in the territory New Labour needs to hold on to win yet another term, namely, the middle class, middle England comfort zone that has kept Blair in power since 1997?
The victory for the Liberal Democrats also shows this isn't, as some claim, a contorted verdict on devolved power. We suggest the analysis is far simpler: it is a verdict that damages Blair and Brown's personal standings at Westminster; it is a constituency's electorate saying they should be listened to Ð both at local and national levels Ð and that their votes cannot be taken for granted by any party.
It also shows how in just eight or so months, Blair has descended into a lame duck Prime Minister. Struggling with his own party, a whips' office shedding authority, unable to pass key legislation, shelving the publication of manifesto commitments, and now the loss of a heartland seat. How much of a hint does he need? He wasted and abused massive majorities, lost the electorate's trust in the continuing trail of lies over the Iraq war, and eventually, slowly, the price is being paid. That it was a transfer of votes from Labour to Liberal Democrat should offer no comfort. A swing from Labour to Tory was never a serious option in Scotland. It may yet take an English by-election to show the extent of the Tory trans formation under David Cameron.
SO we ask: what will it take for Labour to begin listening again, to begin learning again? Many believe the answer is Gordon Brown. Perhaps, but the content of the Chancellor's well-trailed speech tomorrow shows he too has evidently failed to accept that new anti-terrorism measures which threaten civil liberties are not wanted, under his leadership or not.
Parliament threw out an extension of detention without trial to 90 days, limiting it instead to 14 days. Now Brown hints he may try to bring back what was defeated only a few months ago in the Commons. We suggest he should be listening, learning and accepting a democratic verdict rather than trying to impersonate Blair in the I-do-what-I-want stakes. There is precious little evidence to support much of the anti-terrorism legislation the government wants and it should accept that existing laws, when properly and forcefully applied, give a great degree of public protection. Brown himself says there have been three planned attacks on UK targets since 7/7 that have been uncovered.
Does this mean the law is working, that our intelligence system is functioning, that the resources needed to protect us are there? We need precise answers and open government on these matters to believe a giveaway of civil liberties will be to our advantage. And at the moment no such openness exists. We need assurances that our government listens to more than just the sound of their own voices. Until that assurance is given and tangibly felt, there will be more defeats for Labour. And they will be deserved. Meanwhile, their authority will diminish at the hands of perhaps the only weapon any administration staying past its sell-by date fears Ð democracy.
Return to home page