Bermondsey thirty years later

[Sibboleth]

Useful anniversary for reflection, probably.

[johnloony]

It was the first parliamentary by-election I was properly aware of, and I was fascinated by the long list of 16 candidates and their party descriptions. I was aware of it being a contentious and controversial campaign, but at the time I was only aware of Peter Tatchell being attacked for being a left-winger, a draft-dodger, and Australian (etc.) and for the splits in the Labour Party. I wasn't aware of the homophobic issue until afterwards.

[Andrew_S]

Some footage from ITN source, (there's plenty more from the Bermondsey by-election in the archive):

www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist//ITN/1983/02/25/AS250283011/?s=Bermondsey+1983&st=0&pn=1

Report about by-election shown on Newsnight a few days ago:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21556184

[john07]

It was probably the most viscously homophobic campaign ever, all organized by the Liberals. Much of this was in breach of electoral law with anonymous leaflets which many assumed to be from the NF being circulated by the Liberals.

The ultimate irony is that most of the things that the Liberals said about Peter Tatchell were also true about Simon Hughes.

[Deleted]

Bermondsey & Old Southwark could probably have been Labour's safest seat in London today had Bob Mellish not left the House of Commons when he did. By-elections can open huge cans of worms, others are relatively inconsequential.

[Deleted]

there is a very good piece on left futures about this. Blaming Foot's weakmess for a lot of the issues. This will be a very interesting seat next election, there is no question of that

www.leftfutures.org/2013/02/the-nastiest-by-election-ever-and-a-self-inflicted-disaster-for-labour/

[Pete Whitehead]

Feb 25, 2013 16:31:53 GMT swanarcadian said:

Bermondsey & Old Southwark could probably have been Labour's safest seat in London today had Bob Mellish not left the House of Commons when he did. By-elections can open huge cans of worms, others are relatively inconsequential.

Not today no, because of demographic change in parts of the riverside, Surrey Quays etc and demographic change of other kinds which makes other seats safer for them. It was I think the 'safest'Labour seat in London at the time however

[Deleted]

Well lets put it like this, Hughes painted himself very much left wing and the Tory vote there is very very small. It should still be a safish labour seat but like LD's do he managed the seat very well but will that continue ?

Remember this is Millwall territory.

Actually in many ways 'not' a liberal area.

[Andrew_S]

Feb 25, 2013 17:18:07 GMT @trident said:

Feb 25, 2013 16:45:16 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Not today no, because of demographic change in parts of the riverside, Surrey Quays etc and demographic change of other kinds which makes other seats safer for them. It was I think the 'safest'Labour seat in London at the time however

What sort of result do you think the constituency would have produced in recent elections if the by-election had never taken place (and someone like Tatchell had never been selected as a Labour candidate)?

I know the riverside areas have become yuppified, but are there that many of them, and do they actually vote?

As I pointed out elsewhere the census results for the riverside wards are interesting because the white British population has fallen quite sharply when one might have expected it to hold up:


White British 2001 / 2011:
Riverside: 63.3% / 47.7%
Rotherhithe: 63.5% / 41.0%
Surrey Docks: 67.4% / 46.5%

[Pete Whitehead]

Feb 25, 2013 17:18:07 GMT @trident said:

Feb 25, 2013 16:45:16 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Not today no, because of demographic change in parts of the riverside, Surrey Quays etc and demographic change of other kinds which makes other seats safer for them. It was I think the 'safest'Labour seat in London at the time however

What sort of result do you think the constituency would have produced in recent elections if the by-election had never taken place (and someone like Tatchell had never been selected as a Labour candidate)?

I know the riverside areas have become yuppified, but are there that many of them, and do they actually vote?

It would still be a safe Labour seat of course, but nowehere near the safest - not as safe as Camberwell & Peckham for example, probably more Greenwich & Woolwich. Have a look at the Mayoral election results for example. Boris wasn't far off carrying this seat

[East Anglian Lefty]

Though it's worth noting that those wards have seen a substantial increase in the white other population, but that the bulk of this is from nations that were in the EU in 2001. London yuppies are an international lot.

[Deleted]

As a neutral post, it's right that we tend not to have byelections like this anymore, but we haven't had politicians like "the good old days" for a while either.

[gwynthegriff]

Feb 25, 2013 13:50:46 GMT john07 said:

It was probably the most viscously homophobic campaign ever, all organized by the Liberals. Much of this was in breach of electoral law with anonymous leaflets which many assumed to be from the NF being circulated by the Liberals.

The ultimate irony is that most of the things that the Liberals said about Peter Tatchell were also true about Simon Hughes.

And your sources for these claims?

[marksenior]

Feb 25, 2013 13:50:46 GMT john07 said:

It was probably the most viscously homophobic campaign ever, all organized by the Liberals. Much of this was in breach of electoral law with anonymous leaflets which many assumed to be from the NF being circulated by the Liberals.

The ultimate irony is that most of the things that the Liberals said about Peter Tatchell were also true about Simon Hughes.

As someone who was actually involved in that campaign , your comment is completely false and an outright lie . Most of the anti Tatchell leaflets were put out by neither the NF or the Liberals but by Mellish and his supporters . We who were campaigning for the Liberals were simply astonished as to what was going on .
And before you mention " straight choice" , back in those days it did not have the connotation in usage in the poulation ar large that it does today .

[Tony Otim]

Didn't Lord Sutch make a comment about the campaign many years later to the effect that Tatchell was just a crap candidate, regardless of his sexuality.

[The Bishop]

He is not the only person to have said that - it doesn't *really* explain by itself a 44% swing, though!

[Pete Whitehead]

I think thats true. LIke John this was the first by-election I followed and I remember a lot of coverage of it on the local news. MOst of the focus was on Tatchell being 'loony left' and an Australian draft dodger rather than anything on his sexuality, though obviously things may have been different on the ground

[Deleted]

Feb 25, 2013 19:08:43 GMT marksenior said:

Feb 25, 2013 13:50:46 GMT john07 said:

It was probably the most viscously homophobic campaign ever, all organized by the Liberals. Much of this was in breach of electoral law with anonymous leaflets which many assumed to be from the NF being circulated by the Liberals.

The ultimate irony is that most of the things that the Liberals said about Peter Tatchell were also true about Simon Hughes.

As someone who was actually involved in that campaign , your comment is completely false and an outright lie . Most of the anti Tatchell leaflets were put out by neither the NF or the Liberals but by Mellish and his supporters . We who were campaigning for the Liberals were simply astonished as to what was going on .
And before you mention " straight choice" , back in those days it did not have the connotation in usage in the poulation ar large that it does today .

*Most*

Did you put any leaflets out about Tatchell's sexuality?

[timrollpickering]

Feb 25, 2013 19:08:43 GMT marksenior said:

We who were campaigning for the Liberals were simply astonished as to what was going on.

Other Liberal campaigners from the time have admitted to more than just astonishment.

Did the Liberals take a stand against the rampant homophobia? Or did they just sit back and reap the benefits?

And before you mention "straight choice", back in those days it did not have the connotation in usage in the poulation ar large that it does today.

My 1986 Little Oxford Dictionary which I have to hand includes "heterosexual" amongst its definition for "straight". Got a dictionary that proves "straight" did not have such connotations three years earlier?

And regardless of the other uses of the term, it does look as though it was rather handy for dog whistling.

[marksenior]

Feb 25, 2013 21:21:38 GMT timrollpickering said:

Feb 25, 2013 19:08:43 GMT marksenior said:

We who were campaigning for the Liberals were simply astonished as to what was going on.

Other Liberal campaigners from the time have admitted to more than just astonishment.

Did the Liberals take a stand against the rampant homophobia? Or did they just sit back and reap the benefits?

Perhaps a fair criticism in that we did sit back and reap the benefits

And before you mention "straight choice", back in those days it did not have the connotation in usage in the poulation ar large that it does today.

My 1986 Little Oxford Dictionary which I have to hand includes "heterosexual" amongst its definition for "straight". Got a dictionary that proves "straight" did not have such connotations three years earlier?

And regardless of the other uses of the term, it does look as though it was rather handy for dog whistling.

My memory of the time is that "straight" began it's connotation in the late 1970's but had not spread widely enough to have had that meaning known widely if at all in Bermondsey .