Why the major parties can't just blame George Galloway for their shocking performances in Bradford – Telegraph Blogs

Monday 17 March 2014 | Blog Feed | All feeds

Norman Tebbit



It wasn't just ethnic votes that won Galloway the seat (Photo: PA)

It would be all too easy for the major parties to react to the result of the Bradford West by election by just pulling the bedcovers over their heads and telling themselves that it will all go away if we pretend that it had not happened. But it did, and there was something very ugly about it.

Mr Galloway fought his campaign on an unashamed pitch for votes from a minority religous group. There was a high turn-out for a by election in what should have been a safe Labour seat and a very high, perhaps suspiciously high, number of postal votes. No doubt it would be possible to construct some criticisms of such matters, but that is not at the centre of things.

The result was appallingly bad for Labour, Conservatives and the Lib Dems alike. Labour lost over 10,000 of its voters at the last election. The Conservatives lost almost 10,000 of theirs, falling from a respectable (for Bradford) 12,638 to a miserable 2,746. The Lib Dems were down more than 3,000, from 4,732 to only 1,505.

Amongst the 'also rans' the Greens saw their vote all but halved as UKIP leap-frogged them into fifth place adding 270 votes to score 1,085, the only party apart from Respect to gain in strength.

The sensation of course was the leap of over 17,000 to take Respect from fourth place to win with 18,401 votes.

I have tediously set out the numbers, because the way in which the media mostly reported the gains and losses in terms of percentage shares of the vote does not do justice to the reality of the humiliation of the major parties.

There is something which makes me uneasy about the way in which so many commentators have attributed Galloway's victory to his rabble-raising oratory and the shortcomings of his more sober mainstream party opponents. I am sure that is what they said in the Weimar Republic's days about that young Hitler fellow, but I find it deeply disturbing that we have here voters who buy so easily into the role of victimhood and belief in conspiracies to deny them their dues.

Having said that, not all Labour's 10,000 defectors were Muslims, nor was Galloways vote drawn entirely from Muslims. Ed Milliband, who must have been on a high having seen Labour's poll ratings soar to a 10-point lead over the Conservatives, has a lot of thinking to do.

It is a little less difficult for the Lib Dems. Their voters do not like the Coalition. I doubt if many voted for Respect, the Tories, Labour or UKIP. I suspect they stayed at home. The Prime Minister should be as worried as Ed Miliband. The Conservative vote just collapsed. I doubt if it went to Mr Galloway. It could not have gone to Labour or the Lib Dems and before UKIP gets too excited they should ask themselves why more of the stay-at-home Tories did not come out to support them. All in all it was a depressing night for anyone with an atatchment to reality in politics.

More than ever before the mainstream party leaders need to be asking themselves why their one time voters have joined the ranks of the 'None of The Above' moment and why in Bradford so many former 'none of the abovers' responded to the toxic vapourings of Mr  Galloway. Ethnic and religous voting has had a regrettable boost from the ineptitude of Labour and Conservatives alike.

I was pleased that so many of you found yourselves in general agreement with my blog post last week on the need for the Conservative Party to seek out the common ground rather than to move steadily Leftwards towards Labour in search of the middle ground. Unhappily the Conservative Central Office brief supplied to Amos 47 did notunderstand the difference betwen 'middle' and 'common', which made it difficult to follow his argument. At one point he claimed that there was a move to the common ground after Michael Howard's 'rightwing campaign' and at another that the Government had 'moved to the right' and even challenged tanuki to name a promise broken. The word 'referendum' came to my mind and to that of bill prendergast too.

I can forgive Amos 47 for all that, but not for his unprovoked and ill-mannered sneers at olcrom. I have plenty of disagreements with olcrom but respect his military service and respectable hard working life. I am always pleased when we find common ground on which to stand, as last week on wlefare scroungers.

Then grimble said he disagreed with my geometry, seeking to think that moving to the Left need not entail a move to the Left. He also said that I was saying 'follow the polls'. Oh Dear. MT Bucket and Lord Bone put him right, but let me say it again. The common ground is where voters of all persausions find themselves. Very often that is on issues which are central to Conservative philosophy. Those issues should be emphasised by the Tories to pull Labour voters towards them, or as neilcraig put it these are the issues where the Tories are, or hould be, on the same side as most people.

I was particularly encouraged that Laveen Ladharam, from a younger generation and different background to mine, followed through my reasoning and was in broad agreement. Then jambio asked a good question. Are there any examples of left wing common ground policies? I would say probably the NHS principle of treatment regardless of ability to pay, and that of help for those truly in need.

There were numerous comments on the importance of my first principle of the need of a clear and compelling vision, notably from cmack3000 and dunroamin, Quinx, evil tory and Richard LTFC. As usual, UKIP supporters spoke up, some like Cyplopean Tyrant who will vote UKIP until the Tories change, others like durnovia, who see it as the new Conservative Party.

There was an odd contribution from Robert Boogie who dismissed Thatcher's three election wins as being due to the weakness of the opposition. Come off it! Was Brown ever a likely election-winner for the worst government in living memory? If Cameron had scored as many votes as Thatcher (13.7m in 79, then 13.1m in 83 and 13.8m in 87) he would have had a good majority in 2010, but he could only manage 10.7 million.

Sadly immanuel cant was still banging on about my record on the issues of Europe. He simply refuses to read what I have written more than once. I was also sorry that Darkseid is still too upset with by our recent disagreement to give much thought to what I wrote last week. Again my thanks to that great majority of you who endorsed my 'common ground' concept and particularly to mike stallard for his kind personal remarks and to olcrom and mrsmo for their birthday wishes.

Lastly, I did enjoy alhamilton's thought that perhaps the Prime Minister has stumbled not onto the common ground but into no-man's land. He might well be right.

comments powered by Disqus