Winners and losers.....

We've had the best part of a week to digest the result of our by-election and now it is all but forgotten, except for us poor sods in the constituency who are now lumbered with a Tory MP. The result was trumpeted as a massive victory for Cameron's Conservatives, with Iain Dale typical of those with blue-tinted spectacles who focussed on the size of the swing (nearly 17%) and the 7000+ majority.

I have to assume that this was part of a propaganda effort and that the Tories own analysis will be more sophisticated. You could not have picked more favourable circumstances for the Conservatives had you tried. A blitzkrieg of MP's and shadow cabinet spokespersons and a blizzard of slick and sophisticated leaflets - with one estimate of the Tory spending for this put at £100k. Alongside that a cash strapped and demoralised Labour Party lacked confidence and substance, with a candidate that failed to inspire or excite. All against the backdrop of a the disgraceful and vindictive treatment handed out to the very popular previous MP, Ian Gibson - a name that apparently was thrown back time and time again by the good citizens to canvassers of all party's. With no glamour independent candidate and the other 'third parties' either campaigning feebly or selecting an odd candidate (or both!) all hopes of an upset evaporated with the close of nominations.

Despite Ian's left wing credentials his honesty and tenacity as a local MP did mean that some natural Conservative voters had given him a personal vote, guaranteed to return to the fold once he had gone. With his personal vote also taken from people who would normally vote for others, and traditional Labour voters punishing the Party by either staying away or voting for one of the third parties it would have been nothing short of a miracle had the Tories not won.. So, other than the obvious what are the real lessons of the result?

Firstly this wasn't the massive triumph for the Tories that was trumpeted. Against the circumstance described above they actually polled nearly 2000 less than in 2005 with the swing and majority accounted for by the total collapse of the Labour vote. Clearly the former Ian Gibson voters had not switched back to the Conservatives and they even failed to hang on to all their 2005 voters.

Secondly, nor was this the unmitigated disaster for Labour that it first appears. Staggeringly they did actually manage to come second, some 1500 votes above their nearest challengers. With a 'first past the post' voting system still certain for the General Election the Third Party challenge has passed its high water mark without altering the essential arithmetic for voters - vote other than Labour and you help elect a Tory. With two Tory wards, the subject of much attention during the by-election, moving out of the constituency at the General Election, IF Labour can get their act together young Chloe's reign could yet be brief. As incumbent, she will still need to hold good on her promise to put constituents first and ahead of Party - Ian Dale is right in suggesting that she will need to work hard in former Labour heartland areas - if she is to make good on the advantage this gives her.

Thirdly, the Green challenge failed to really materialise with the Lib Dems scare tactics and infantile campaigning disappointingly giving them enough benefit to hold third place. UKIP, picking up disgruntled voters from both Labour and Conservative even managed to finish ahead of the Greens. Whichever way Rupert tries to spin it this also serves to highlight that in a close campaign their intervention is really only likely to benefit the Tories.

Saying that this wasn't the unmitigated disaster for Labour is one thing, but them rectifying their mistakes and getting the seat back is something completely different. It will take changes both locally and nationally to stand a chance of success, and it is very unlikely that these changes will take place. Nationally Brown needs to go, and any replacement needs to find a way of apologising for the way the Party treated Ian Gibson - without this basic step the wounds from the debacle of the star chamber will continue to fester. Locally a more credible candidate than Ostrowski is needed, one with longer and more obvious local connections. It is unlikely Ian could be attracted back, but some rapprochement is necessary. As with an apology this is unlikely - the obvious source of a local candidate would be a prominent Councillor but so poor is the reputation of the City Council, and so few the number of County Councillors for the Party. Linked to this would be some step change in the local councils efficiency, with its poor reputation as much a function of poor management by officers and the perceived indifference of many front line staff as of weak political leadership it would take something very dramatic indeed to change the publics perception of City Hall in the time between now and the General Election

A bleak choice

Despite a poor candidate and the dreadful treatment of Ian Gibson, there does seem to be some movement back to Labour as we near polling day. It won't be enough to save the seat, but the prospect of young Chloe and a Tory MP has started to focus a few minds on how best to prevent it.

The Greens effectively blew their chance by persuading a perfectly good candidate (Adrian Holmes) that he didn't really want to stand and choosing Rupert instead, and then running a lacklustre campaign.

The LibDems have been dreadful, with scary April manipulated by the LibDem by-election machine into claims that have even driven the sober citizens of Aylsham to write into the local papers and complain about (her claimed single-handed saving of the local hospital came as news to local campaigners).

None of the independents have had the charisma or wider support of a Martin Bell, and UKIP have managed to generate the nearest thing to a joke locally with 'Don't mingle with Glen Tingle' adorning his third Reich era posters, undermining the Aryan poster boy impression they otherwise give.

In face of all this the Tories have given it their all, Cameron has made his fourth visit today and the area is flooded with party workers delivering leaflets. Cameron's obvious desire to specifically get Chloe elected does nothing to reduce the local impression of her as a Westminster insider. Her much vaunted Norfolk background has also aggravated a few locally to whom rural Norfolk and landed gentry might as well inhabit another planet. Working 'tirelessly' in the constituency since January 2008 doesn't really cut it either.

I suppose it could be a clever Tory strategy as it is in their interest for the Labour vote not to collapse and coalesce around one of the alternatives. Sadly, lessons of history aren't much in evidence in the Lidl queue and by this time next week we'll be a year ahead of the rest of the country as the Tories manage to neatly side-step their historic culpability for today's crisis.

Photo-op's and Parties past

The war of the photo-op continues with more ministerial visits lined up, and presumably shadow ministers as well. The local media generally oblige by providing coverage, but only for known national names - this has the effect of marginalising the remaining parties competing in the election, in fact even the Lib Dems can suffer on this score, so they keep sending Nick Clegg - guaranteed a sympathetic interview from Archant and the BBC.

The BBC did manage a BOGOF today, with Charles Clarke hijacking yet another Cameron visit to give him a letter about Andy Coulson. The danger with this stunt is that your enemy retaliates and start to hijack your photo-opportunities - with two weeks to go it could yet get very silly with the Loony's and other Independents yet to start their photo-op hijacking campaign. Perhaps anticipation of this is why a lot of the visits tend to be secret, with only the organisations concerned and the press tipped off in advance.

Rumours about the past of candidates continues, with Ostrowski doing nothing to improve his standing and image by conceding that his much vaunted UEA past included time spent in the Conservative Students Society, and even standing for them as a candidate in NUS elections. Rupert on the other hand used to be a LibDem - hardly a surprise, especially given the venom those clean campaigning LibDem's have extended to him.

Meanwhile Mr Tickle the UKIP candidate denies a rumoured past association with the National Front - but did he really need to trot out the old 'some of my best friends are ......' defence? His posters, advertising and leaflets all continue to prominently feature his picture as an Aryan pin-up boy.

TV appearance by 4 of the candidates last night, 30 seconds each on education. In order of competence in delivery 1. young Chloe, clearly showing how well groomed she has been by Tory Central Office; 2. Rupert, sounding like a Rupert but stringing coherent sentences together, 3. Scary April (but almost as vacuous in content as young Chloe) 4 - by a long way, Ostrowski continuing to demonstrate support for the 'ironic gesture' theory behind his selection. Try getting any sentence from him that doesn't include the words 'SureStart centres'.

Also on TV last night was Harriet Harman, trying hard to smile and talk through gritted teeth. It does seem that Labour nationally really thought they could remove Ian from the candidates list and that he'd go quietly at the next election. I suppose if you are in the Westminster bubble and know nothing of either the person or the constituency you might just be able to delude yourself that at 70 and with a heart condition, Ian could retire gracefully at the next election and be presented as a sign that the party was being 'tough' on the expenses scandal. Instead they have a by-election they are going to get slaughtered at, a very disgruntled local party and just look pathetic bullies when Ian's expenses are compared with others against whom no action has been taken (Mandy, anyone?)