Talk:1983 Bermondsey by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Homophobic song lyrics[edit]

A 1994 Independent article by Nick Cohen gives the lyrics to the song sung by John O'Grady as:

Tatchell is a poppet, as pretty as can be,

But he must be slow if he don't know he won't be your MP

Tatchell is an Aussie, he lives in a council flat,

He wears his trousers back to front 'cos he don't know this from that.

('Profile: To fight the gay fight; One battle may have been lost but the war goes on. Nick Cohen on a radical with a cause', The Independent, February 27, 1994)

Is it worth including this in the article? On the one hand, I don't like the idea of including homophobic content unless it genuinely adds something to the article; on the other hand, I've heard people express confusion about the current newspaper reports which only mention the "trousers back to front" line, so maybe including more information about the song would be helpful? VoluntarySlave 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing wording[edit]

I caught a snatch of a contemporary interview with Hughes from the by-election. He was asked about the campaign being unfair, and noted that he thought the Liberals had fought a "straight" campaign. I wonder to what extent that sense was popularly known back then - OED has cites going back to 1941. Morwen - Talk 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Useless figures'[edit]

Can someone please explain to me why the change in majority in the by-election and the swing are 'useless'? Thanks. JJE 10:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The change in the majority is clearly utterly useless: it compares a Labour majority over Conservative with a Liberal majority over Labour. The swing in Bermondsey was +9.1%. I wouldn't have a problem in putting that in but some people think the swing should in some way involve the Liberal vote. David | Talk 20:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. What is the standard swing used on Wikipedia, by the way? Is it a Butler Swing (as I would expect) or a Steed Swing? JJE 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Straight"[edit]

In 1983 "straight" was widely used as an opposite to "gay" in the same way that heterosexual is used in opposition to homosexual.

The use of the word by Simon Hughes' campaign was no accident any more than was the presence of Liberal Party members in the constituency during the by-election wearing 'I've not been kissed by Peter Tatchell' badges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.7.208 (talkcontribs) 15:50, 28 August 2006.→The above comment offers no source or proof of the claim; it is a widely use phrase by all parties in many elections, I've seen it on literature from second placed candidates in many seats, including from Tories, Labour and SNP. It's more likely to be found on Lib/LibDem leaflets as they need to emphasise tactical voting and that they're not "the third party" in that specific district, to counter general perceptions. I've edited the article slightly to clear up some issues surrounding Hughes sexuality (he, like myself, is bisexual, which is not the same as gay) and expanded the section on "straight choice" linking to articles explaining why such campaigning is useful. Full disclosure, I'm a member of the Lib Dems, but not a particularly partizan one, althought I've also donated money to Tatchell in the past. 89.243.233.141 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)MatGB[reply]

To add to the above: I (Martin Bennett) was the local Bermondsey Liberals publicity/press officer at the time. Obviously when the bye-election was in full swing decisions were made by the Andy Ellis (the election agent) and his team, however we were involved in decisions and there was a general agreement to stay clear of the homophobic mud slinging. I cannot recall the "straight choice" as being controversial at the time. It followed an opinion poll that placed us second behind Peter Tatchell. The use of 'straight' as synonymous with not gay was known but not, I think, so widely used amongst Bermondsey people at that time.

We knew that we were far better placed than the national press ever assumed, we had been actively campaigning in the previous few years and the previous local elections showed that we had already established considerable visibility in the constituency. The poll was more of a surprise to national media than it was to us, even so it provided the opportunity to establish our credentials.

I certainly did not see the "I've not been kissed by Peter Tatchell" badges. It does not surprise me that no evidence of any connection to the Liberals has been supplied, as no such evidence exists. There was certainly plenty of homophobia around, from which we benefited, but so far as we were aware most of it stemmed from the acrimonious split within the Labour party. I agree with Andy Ellis that we had nothing to be ashamed about. 87.240.204.37 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the Liberal Party campaign full time at the main campaign office for about a month and agree with most of what Martin says. However, he is incorrect in saying that Andy Ellis was the Election Agent. The agent was Peter Bray. I don't recall any comment being made about the use of the slogan 'Straight Choice" at the time or in the immediate aftermath. My impression is that highlighting this phrase has only subsequently occurred due to the need of some to discredit the Liberal campaign. It is wholly in Simon Hughes's nature that he would want to nevertheless apologise for this phrase being innocently used.Graemp (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Miranda Grell?[edit]

I added Miranda Grell to the "see also" section. Grell was recently convicted under the Representation of the People Act 1983 for spreading untrue statements about her gay opponent. "See also" sections are often used for links to articles about similar situations, and Grell's case has some similarities to what happened in Bermondsey. Fys disagrees and has twice removed the link, and put Miranda Grell up for AfD. So, I thought I'd bring this to the Talk page. Is a "see also" link to Grell appropriate? Bondegezou 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grell has survived the AfD and lost her appeal. Tatchell himself, commenting on the case, linked it to his own experiences in Bermondsey, so I'd like to re-suggest the addition. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the Grell case is clearly relevant to discussion of homophobia in UK elections. I suspect that attempts to remove the link are politically motivated.Fig (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If no-one else has any comments on the suggestion, I'll re-add Grell as a "see also" in a few days. Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:S Hughes 83.jpg[edit]

Image:S Hughes 83.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Docklands Development Corporation[edit]

The opening paragraph ends with a couple of sentences about Robert Mellish's appointment to the London Docklands Development Corporation, a post he agreed to take without salary. I'm not disputing that this happened (it's mentioned in Hansard here), but it seems a bit irrelevant, because it isn't followed up in the rest of the article and isn't really about the 1983 Bermondsey by-election. Someone needs to write a paragraph explaining why it is relevant, or alternatively take it out and put it into the article on Robert Mellish. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esmond Bevan[edit]

While I'm at it, the article mentions the unfortunate Esmond Bevan, who mistakenly entered his political party as "Systems Designer", thus creating a whole new party. It sounds very futuristic. He seems to have no internet presence. Does anyone know anything about him? Was his name made-up, or was it his real name? Was he related to Aneurin Bevan? Did he stand in any other elections? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ptatchell.jpg[edit]

Image:Ptatchell.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography Scope[edit]

This article is not within the scope of WikiProject Biography per WP:BIO. WikiBio tag removed. However, I have assessed that this should be part of WikiProjectPolitics and have added that template and rated the article as Start. C. Williams (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bermondsey by-election, 1983. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Homophobia"??[edit]

Distaste for homosexual behaviour is not the same and actually quite different than fear. Most people in Britain, especially back then, are Christians. They dont fear gay people, they cannot stand them, its against christian teachings and their morality.

62.226.87.10 (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As is the case generally across language, what the word means is separate to its etymology. This is discussed in the article homophobia. I see no need for any edits on this article. Bondegezou (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Labour "sabotage"[edit]

I've added this to the section on the Liberal campaign, but realise now that there is a degree of redundancy between this section and the attacks on Tatchell section. Thoughts / improvements welcome. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Printing Costs[edit]

The 'Start of Campaign' section talks of the cost of pulped leaflets being counted against election costs. Certainly now only delivered leaflets have to be declared. The rules may have been different at the time, but this section is not referenced and may not be correct. 2A00:23C8:2B4:C301:C504:E902:45CB:CA22 (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]