These were solid by-election victories, achieved last night:
So, in its owns way was this:
The outcome was that which I expected yesterday, when I suggested that the Tories might hold Uxbridge.
Some comment is appropriate.
First, the Labour and LibDem swings do not prove much. Tories in Yorkshire disliked a petty MP who resigned in anger. They reacted to a very local situation. Labour may struggle to fold the seat, which it has never won before.
The LibDems cannot, as a matter of fact, repeat their victory in Somerset because the seat is being abolished at the next general election.
Both victories are likely to go down in by-election history in that case. But they may not indicate much when it comes to a trend.
That said, the very obvious tactical voting that secured these wins indicate that people have realised how to our-manoeuvre first-past-the-post. That is very welcome.
I also noticed the Greens did better in every election, with an impressive result in Somerset, where they clearly wiped out the rump of the Labour vote. Labour should be worried. That portends well for Brighton Pavilion and maybe elsewhere.
And then there was Uxbridge, where a very right-wing Labour candidate (as is, admittedly, the winner in Selby) did badly. The blame is all laid at the door of Sadiq Khan and the ultra-low emission zone extension in London, which is bizarre since this was created by the outgoing Tory MP for the seat, Boris Johnson, and 92% of cars in London are exempt from the charge.
The messages from that are clear. This was also a local result. It cannot, therefore, be extrapolated. What can be extrapolated is that media bias still plays a big part in Tory wins. There is also a problem with selling green issues. The influence of big money has not gone away.
But what of the bigger picture when, to be candid, all these look to be exceptional results in the actual meaning of that term?
First, the Tories are in trouble or the results in Yorkshire and Somerset would not have happened.
Second, first-past-the-post has been rumbled, which is very bad news for the Tories if it is replicated at a general election, which cannot, however, be guaranteed.
Third, Labour is not guaranteed to win.
Fourth, LibDems have reason to be optimistic.
Fifth, so too have the Greens.
Sixth, no one is doing that well.
Seventh, the narratives to beat a hostile media have still not been created, most especially by Labour.
The next election does not have a guaranteed outcome, in other words, but it definitely does not look good for the Tories: Uxbridge is unlikely to be replicable.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It is alarming that the Tories have created a seemingly successful wedge issue in anti emision zone and ‘pro-motorist’, with the Uxbridge result spun as a win for the Tories (above the more significant losses they had).
Environmental groups need to carry on promoting and defending climate change action, and especially support and defend greener ways of travel reducing car use.
Sadiq Khan must be supported, as he could next be on the Labour ‘witch hunt’ to clear out anyone to the left of the current powers behind the scene. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to ‘persuade’ Khan to step down before the next mayoral election (paving the way for a right wing candidate who would advocate what the Tories want). Therfore, Khan must be supported from now on.
I agree
And I support Sadiq – who I have known since he first became a school governor with me in the early 90s
The Greens came third in all 3 seats. which looks hopeful – it looks as if people are seeing them as the alternative to the Big 2 in each seat.
I worry that Sir Kid Starver will use Uxbridge to reject any sensible policies even more.
What interests me is knowing the Conservative, Labour, LibDem, and Green parties attitude to austerity. By this I mean attempting to balance the government’s books. None of them dare to say whether they’re for more austerity, less austerity or the same.
Effectively this means the next election will be a “lucky dip” election as to whether urgently needed government spending to tackle climate change and under-funded government goods and services will actually transpire.
I think we can guess that with the Conservative and Labour parties it will be pretty much the same the exception with Labour being possibly more overly expensive PFI projects. The last LibDem manifesto doesn’t inspire confidence they say they want more social housing but then leave it out of their list of how they’ll find the money for it. The Green Party as we know are still hooked into Positive Money ideology with an unaccountable committee responsible for how much money is created.
In a nutshell then democracy in the UK has become “lucky dip” democracy. This is reflected in relatively low turn-outs for many elections where many people cynically don’t vote because of long experience of politicians not implementing their promises. Nicholas Clegg was of course the classic example of this.
The upshot of all this is getting rid of this “lucky dip” democracy is entirely dependent on a massive campaign to make the people of the UK monetarily literate. There is no other way!
The growth in the Green vote should worry Labour (which is a good thing). Whilst the best case scenario for the Greens at the next election would be to gain an extra seat and at the outside a third that is not the threat to Labour. The danger for Labour at the next election will be in marginal constituencies where the Greens could take away crucial votes. The Greens should focus on broadening their appeal as the anti austerity alternative. This is not helped by their current economic stance as you have pointed out Richard. However, I would say that the best bet for the progressive left in this country is a positive engagement with the Green Party to push them further on basic economic and social issues whilst maintaining their stance on the environment.
Well said Tom, the greens are by far the best bet while labour continues to be so gutless in many areas. And that, thanks to the FPTP, does indeeed pose a threat to labour in marginals. Of course, if labour would actively pursue by whatever means, alliances with the greens, LD’s and SNP this wouldn’t matter so much but as it is labout’s tribalism and factionalism is worse than ever.
I noted that if all green or LD voters had voted labour in Uxbridge, they would have won and there’d be one less tory MP. Also that the tories have shamelessly pursued an anti environmental line to win here. Labour did at least correctly say that the lack of government funding for the scrappage scheme has led to a lack of support for it, but once again that means that labour’s own ‘there’s no money’ attitude is going to bite them on the arse.
So expect to see now the disgusting tories relentlessly pursue an anti green agenda to try and pick up votes and a spineless labour party retreat even more from green policies to try and counter this. The other two results were of course cheering, but why the hell do the voters themselvs have to use tactical voting whilst the labour idiots refuse to endorse it?
I cannot help but notice the Tory vote in all 3 examples.
Just how bad do you have to be these days in order to be voted out?
Honestly, some people……………………
One thing picked up by Labour Hub is that Labour parachuted in a candidate with no local connections, to replace a local Muslim candidate.
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/07/21/learning-the-right-lessons-from-uxbridge/
If it was ULEZ that swayed people, why did the ULEZ party not get more votes instead of losing their deposit?
In Uxbridge only two parties got more than 5% of the vote. In Selby and Frome, three parties did, with the Green Party being third in both cases.
By the way, what happens to all the lost deposits? Which level of local authority keeps them?
Re the last – I do not know
“What happens to all the lost deposits?”
Apparently they go into the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/lost-deposits/
There were also three local by-elections, two results so far:
St Margaret and South Marston (Swindon) council by-election result:
CON: 50.6% (+2.1)
LAB: 49.4% (-2.1)
Votes cast: 2,261
Conservative GAIN from Labour.
LDEM: 48.2% (-19.8 )
PC: 46.9% (+15.0)
CON: 4.9% (+4.9)
Votes cast: 618
Liberal Democrat HOLD.
The Somerton & Frome result hides some interesting info. The turnout was 44.23% v 75.6% in 2019.
Comparing the voting numbers, Lib Dem increased their vote by 4170, but the Conservatives lost 24,473 (and you could reduce that by adding the UKIP and Reform votes, ie 1578) ie the result was largely due to Conservatives staying at home – so not so in the bag for a General election maybe.
Greens vote increased by 649 .
I would put the welcome increase in the Green vote largely down to a shift of some potential tactical Labour voters angry at stuff like Labour’s backtracking on the two child benefit ceiling and the bedroom tax. In which case it is likely to increase further in response to further red lines crossed.
The rising Green vote is basically a sign of generational change in the voter demographic. Old voters die. Young, greener ones replace them
Now someone really needs to have a word with the UK Greens about that weird affection they have for Positive Money drivel before they get even more popular.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379423000240
That word is happening…
Interesting information about the winner of the Selby and Ainsty winner, labour’s Keir number 2. He used to work for Matthew Parris when he was a tory MP. Strange, that, considering that when he was at school in Hull he set up a labour group for young people. I wonder if that was why he left Hymers, a boys private school.
That all seems a bit implausible given his age….
Not really. You should see what my MP writes in his letters; ‘When I was in the defence department, the education department, the transport department, ‘ etc.
He was a spad in all of them but for less than a year each. You’d think from letters he writes about education he’d been a minister, but he was a spad for Williamson for less than 4 months. He was a spad for Fallon for 6 months, but he knows all about defence.
Actually, you are right. Baby Keir worked as a spad for Parris when he was writing for the Times, not when he was an MP. Still seems a strange choice.
Been watching Prem this morning. He was at the PLP meeting last Monday after Rachel Reeves had said there is no money to stop the 2 child policy.
Prem said in a very loud voice that if she cared to meet with him, he would tell here what taxes she could alter to get the billions she needs.
He hasn’t had a response, but lots of labour MPs heard him, apparently.
Perhaps anyone in her constituency needs to pass on the message. It should be able to get out via Facebook ot twitter.
He also said the meeting was almost silent, with nobody agreeing with Kid Starver over this