Sunday, July 02, 2006
Staying local
Irrational is not usually a word I would use when talking about Nick Cohen but a small piece in his Observer column this week is precisely that. Mr. Cohen writes:
The 'pavement politics' revolution the Liberals began in the Sixties now means we have MPs who know nothing about foreign or domestic politics, but their ignorance doesn't matter. What matters is that they're 'local'.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide whether 'being local' is a relevant factor in choosing their MP, however the promotion of local links is not something that is confined to Liberal Democrat campaigning, nor can it be said that we originated the tactic. The Labour campaign in Hartlepool and the Tories in Cheadle for example, both used the fact that their candidate lived in the constituency as significant campaigning assets.
Both also ruthlessly highlighted perceived weaknesses in the Liberal Democrat candidate in the respective by-elections whilst in Birmingham Hodge Hill and Hartlepool, Labour sought to disrupt our campaign with demonstrations and blatant intimidation. Although I am not claiming that the Liberal Democrats are whiter-than-white, the behaviour of the other two parties in these contests went far beyond anything we did or are accused of doing in Bromley and Chiselhurst.
So before the likes of Nick Cohen and Bob Neill get on their high horse they need to look at the context. The fact is that British political parties have spent an inordinate amount of time in America learning about the sort of negative campaigning that goes on there. Although we have not yet sunk to the American level, what they have discovered is that these tactics work here and they are using them. In that respect the Liberal Democrats are no different and no worse than any other party.
As for "pavement politics" or Community Politics as we prefer to call it, well that has nothing to do with being local either in theory or in the way it is practised. The theory is that it is meant to empower people to take action in their own communities. Certainly, that is how it has been used in America and Britain. The practise is that it has been used as an election tactic to focus in on specific issues in a neighbourhood and to create an action man/woman image for a particular candidate. That person does not have to live locally, but he or she does need to 'act' locally.
Personally, I have always tried to use it as an enabling strategy and to keep my campaigning focussed on the issues not the person. I have done that despite my opponents getting personal with me. I do not pretend that all Liberal Democrats do the same but we are all products of our age. Political campaigning is getting more problematic for purists like Nick Cohen, but he should also be aware that in trying to wrongly blame the Liberal Democrats for unhappy trends he is just doing the work of their opponents and becoming entangled in the same nasty web.
The 'pavement politics' revolution the Liberals began in the Sixties now means we have MPs who know nothing about foreign or domestic politics, but their ignorance doesn't matter. What matters is that they're 'local'.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide whether 'being local' is a relevant factor in choosing their MP, however the promotion of local links is not something that is confined to Liberal Democrat campaigning, nor can it be said that we originated the tactic. The Labour campaign in Hartlepool and the Tories in Cheadle for example, both used the fact that their candidate lived in the constituency as significant campaigning assets.
Both also ruthlessly highlighted perceived weaknesses in the Liberal Democrat candidate in the respective by-elections whilst in Birmingham Hodge Hill and Hartlepool, Labour sought to disrupt our campaign with demonstrations and blatant intimidation. Although I am not claiming that the Liberal Democrats are whiter-than-white, the behaviour of the other two parties in these contests went far beyond anything we did or are accused of doing in Bromley and Chiselhurst.
So before the likes of Nick Cohen and Bob Neill get on their high horse they need to look at the context. The fact is that British political parties have spent an inordinate amount of time in America learning about the sort of negative campaigning that goes on there. Although we have not yet sunk to the American level, what they have discovered is that these tactics work here and they are using them. In that respect the Liberal Democrats are no different and no worse than any other party.
As for "pavement politics" or Community Politics as we prefer to call it, well that has nothing to do with being local either in theory or in the way it is practised. The theory is that it is meant to empower people to take action in their own communities. Certainly, that is how it has been used in America and Britain. The practise is that it has been used as an election tactic to focus in on specific issues in a neighbourhood and to create an action man/woman image for a particular candidate. That person does not have to live locally, but he or she does need to 'act' locally.
Personally, I have always tried to use it as an enabling strategy and to keep my campaigning focussed on the issues not the person. I have done that despite my opponents getting personal with me. I do not pretend that all Liberal Democrats do the same but we are all products of our age. Political campaigning is getting more problematic for purists like Nick Cohen, but he should also be aware that in trying to wrongly blame the Liberal Democrats for unhappy trends he is just doing the work of their opponents and becoming entangled in the same nasty web.
