Lib Dems blame the failure to win on hung parliament 'scare stories'
It was supposed to be the dawn of three-party politics, with a nationwide Liberal Democrat surge on the back of 'Cleggmania'.
But in the end, it was only Labour and Conservatives who traded seats in Leicestershire at the General Election.
-
.Kevin McKeever Labour, Edward Garnier Conservative and Zuffar Haq Liberal Democrat
Britain's third party lost seats nationally, while its share of the vote rose only slightly.
With Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg currently playing kingmaker in the hung parliament, there has been no time to scrutinise the party's disappointing performance nationally.
Here, however, the two party hopefuls who were closest to a breakthrough blamed, in part, media "scare-mongering" about a hung parliament.
Harborough was 26th on the Lib Dem list of target seats. Leicester South was 28th.
Zuffar Haq managed to increase the number of Lib Dem votes in Harborough but the high turnout meant his share of the vote dropped by 3.6%.
Tory Edward Garnier increased his vote by more than 6%, giving him almost half of the votes cast.
Mr Haq said the "constant scare stories" about the prospect of a hung parliament made it difficult for Lib Dems to break through.
He said: "Nick Clegg performed well in the TV debates, which rightly opened him up to scrutiny.
"But some of the stories about Lib Dem policy were designed to scare rather than inform and that did have an effect.
"It's ironic, though, that Tories and Lib Dems went head-to-head in places such as Harborough but now could be teaming up together in parliament."
At a local level, he said he was proud of the "clean" campaign he fought.
"I can walk with my head held high because I did not stoop to gutter politics during the campaign.
"I was faced with a vicious onslaught from some candidates and dirty tricks throughout. Some people clearly expected it to be close," he said.
"It would have been easy for me to lower myself and respond but I wanted to run a positive campaign based on issues."
In Leicester South, Parmjit Gill's share of the vote dropped by 3.7%, while Labour incumbent Sir Peter Soulsby's rose by 6.3%, giving him an increased majority of 8,088.
Conservative candidate Ross Grant picked up an extra 3,000 votes for the Tories.
Mr Gill said he had expected it to be a tight race but knew his chance of winning had faded when votes from Spinney Hill were counted on the night.
He said: "It was relatively tight until those were emptied out.
"Every vote seemed to be for Labour. I watched them count for quite a while and didn't see a single Lib Dem or Tory vote. It was very surprising and it still puzzles me.
"Locally, I think all of the candidates ran clean campaigns in terms of the literature posted to people – but, of course, I've no idea what people were telling residents on the doorstep.
"The result was a disappointment but I was never complacent and fought for every vote right until the end.
"Of course, I'll be back because I want to serve the people of Leicester South.
"Nick Clegg came under attack from many national newspapers which didn't want him to do well.
"People were getting fearful of a hung parliament and there were also some scare stories about our policies which weren't accurate."
There were some positives the Lib Dems could take from the election.
In Leicester West, the party's share of the vote rose by 4.4%, to more than a quarter of the vote.
In Melton and Rutland, the party regained second place.
21 Comments
View all
by Eileen, Lib Dems, Kibworth
Wednesday, May 12 2010, 10:26AM
“Had not noticed the duplicate - no idea why it happened but thanks Kulgan have done as you suggested, hopefully the second one will be removed soon.
I appreciate that you were very uncomfortable with Anne's comments, me too. Whatever our feelings in all of this (and trust me I've got a few of my own right now) inciting insurrection cannot be condoned regardless of how provoked we feel.
There have been some truly harsh things written here over the last few days, some justified some not, but hopefully now that the new government is in place we can all start looking forward.
Things have changed though, a line has been crossed that really shouldn't have been. As far as I'm aware (aopolgies if I'm mistaken) this is the first time in a Leics. election that someone has gone into print about a candidate's family member (I accept that she is a local cllr. but to be honest that's no excuse - she was not a candidate this time around). As I'm sure readers will understand my concern (and probably others also) is - what next? Targetting their children, parents etc.? Whilst people may not always agree with candidate's political views I think most accept that their reason for standing is a desire to make this country a better place for us all. It really is a shame that this new low has been reached, but I have no doubt that now that it has worse will follow. Ouch! What price trying to serve your community if you risk your family being targetted?”
by Kulgan, Crydee
Wednesday, May 12 2010, 7:45AM
“Eileen,
If you read my reply to Anne regarding her comment ""Time I think for the Residents of England to Revolt before we get a shim sham and be made to pay for more Taxes to keep,Welsh,Scots,Irish afloat?"
My reply was:
"Anne Bond,
Whilst some of your comments are correct, your last sentence is dreadful. You are spouting insurrection!!! Normally you are on the button but endorsing public disorder is not the way. We must have the Rule of Law."
I do not always agree with Anne and on the point of insighting insurrection that actually shocked me.
By the way, if you accidently post something twice, (I do occasionally), click the 'Report Abuse' button and under the category 'General Abuse' just say that it is a duplication. The online staff will remove the extra one(s).
A new start for the Country. It our Country and we should support our new Government. I do not agree with the Lib Dems on Europe or the Nuclear Deterrent, but, we need to sort the Country out and to do that, we will need to support the new coalition Government.”
by Peter, Wigston, Leicestershire
Tuesday, May 11 2010, 11:58PM
“The mire we are in today was caused by ME, ME, ME bankers demanding vast salaries and nauseating bonuses whilst ruining the country, its people and its businesses. Many of these dreadful people are no doubt the school chums and Oxford buddies of the Con clones, and also no doubt many in the 'rich' list that supported Cameron the Con before the election.
Blaming the government is like accusing the police of murder for letting criminals commit crimes. It won't wash.”
by Eileen, Lib Dems, Kibworth
Tuesday, May 11 2010, 6:39PM
“Kulgan, unlike Anne Bond (Conservative Activist) I judge each as I find and only react to nastiness don't cause it, but to be far I take your point. There is a very good reason why the tories are traditionally known as the 'nasty party' and to be honest some of the stuff written on here shows why this remains the case.
For instance, Phil King (Conservative Councillor) now seems to be having a veiled go at Cllr. Mrs Haq (who WASN'T standing for election) re. expenses increases in Oadby and Wigston yet fails to mention the whopping great increase he and his Tory buddies voted themselves las year whilst cutting jobs and services. Play the game Phil, most of us NEVER go for politician's families (bar one (and yes he WAS a Tory) - oh I forgot.....................
I'm sure the readers would be interested in your reply to my last 'post' to you on 4th of May
i.e.
I appreciate that my genuine concerns regarding car parking charges, burial increases, closing disabled toilets, care home transfers, stealth taxes on our youngster's education etc. may not be to your liking but those of us who have been here some time are really upset and angry at the arrogant way you and your party have walked all over the needs and aspirations of ordinary people around here (Harborough). You can blame the Labour Gov. (easy target but most local authorities are in the same boat and seem to manage) or the past 'Lib Dem administration' at Harborough (not true voters - it was actually 18 Lib Dem, 16 Cons, 3 Indies, we could have been voted down every time) but ultimately we are all responsible for our voting record NOW - and you should take responsibility for your actions at the very least rather than blaming others.
Rather than 'shooting the messenger' why don't you attempt to justify your actions to the electorate you serve? I'm sure we'd all like to know why it was acceptable to vote in massive increases in allowances at the very same time as cutting people's jobs and local services.
I've already given you one way of reducing costs - cut the allowances increases you awarded yourselves still further than you did this year. IF we felt your party would deign to listen myself and others would work with you for the good of the district (as we have always done in the past) but we have consistently been rebuffed since your group got a majority - I think it goes like this 'WE'RE in power now - WE'RE the administration, you're the opposition - oppose. Charming! And uutterly wasteful (but very Conservative).
So you see folks there is always more than one side to any discussion - usually several :-)
As to what sort of 'deal' will be struck and with whom - again it is easy to slate the Lib Dems but in all honestly IF they were just out for themselves this uncertainty would probably have been over by now. It is vital to ensure that the best interests of the country are served no? Better surely to take the time to do this right than to just go with the highest bidder? We must all want to ensure any alliance (if one IS formed) is long-lasting and creates a positive government for the future of us all.
Just my personal point of view.”
by JR, Oadby
Tuesday, May 11 2010, 5:25PM
“Mr. Haq should face facts and admit that he took a thrashing.
Continuing to whine about scare stories and negative campaigning just makes him look like a sore loser. For his own sake and his party's sake he would be better to forget about it and admit the better man one.
Haq tried to win but ultimately was found wanting.”