The Scottish and local election results are catching headlines but there were also two Westminster by-elections yesterday. I thought this result in Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough was telling:
Labour held the seat with 14,087 votes (62%). In second place was the Ukip candidate, Steven Winstone, with 4,497 (22%), followed by the Lib Dems' Shaffaq Mohammed on 1,385 (6.09%), and the Conservative candidate, Spencer Pitfield, with 1,267 votes (5.57%).
Labour's share of the vote went up 5.8%. Ukip came second, but their share of the vote was down 2.2%. And the Conservatives saw their share of the vote fall by 5.4%.
The result was broadly similar in Ogmore, except the Tories and LibDems swapped places.
Now of course these were safe Labour seats, but three things stand out. The first is that Labour increased its share. Corbyn did not put people off. The second is that UKIP came second. This is worrying. The third is the failure of the Conservatives and Lib Dems to make ground: UKIP is the opposition protest party now.
What does this say? That Labour is probably doing acceptably in England and Wales and there isn't a Corbyn backlash. Second it says UKIP is surviving on the fringes. And thirdly, there is no doubt that polarisation is a theme of UK politics now.
Politics has changed - and not just in Scotland - but who is where on the map may become more entrenched and not less if UKIP become a de facto but nonetheless unelectable opposition in many seats. That's not necessarily good news for democracy, good government, or change.
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:
The stick-ability of UKIP is a stain on British politics as far as I am concerned.
I’m hearing reports of a Tory resurgency in Scotland of all places too which is very interesting and worthy of drilling down to understand why. My view is that the anti-independence folk have found something to cling too. In my mind Labour need to build bridges with the SNP.
But ‘Polarisation Politics’ is here to stay – especially now we are in a post crash world where it sometimes feels that a new understanding of the world is so close – a debunking of neo-liberalism – that really UKIP and even the SNP just seem to cloud the real issues of growing inequality and rampant anti-democracy.
As we have both a divided left dominant party and a divided right dominant party, it is inevitable that the likes of UKIP and the SNP are becoming more attractive to those alienated by the traditional mainstream parties.
Their “stick-ability” is merely a reflection of the failure of the others to engage with the hearts of the British voters who are attracted less by intellectual debate of the future possibilities when all around them they see social failure and communities in decline from their past actions.
If UKIP reach critical mass to break through the in-built barriers to the two party system under FPTP, then the sparks will fly. Much as I dislike UKIP’s policies, it is in my view the shake-up that the UK political system and establishment have needed for a very long time.
The fact that the challenge in England is coming from a right leaning nationalist party, rather than a left leaning democratic/socialist/internationalist party is the more worrying factor in the state of the English politics and economy.
In some ways the Scots have the better deal, which is clearly shown by the level of support that the SNP has maintained in these elections.
As a simple man I like to analyse politics as I would sport. The Q always asked on R5 is “at the start of the season/tournament/fight would he have taken that ?”
If you look back 4/5 months, if you’d asked David Cameron, “would you accept the loss of London mayoralty for 2nd place in Scotland?” he would have looked at you aghast.
If you look back 4/5 months,
if you’d asked Jeremy Corbyn, “would you accept the London mayoralty for 3rd place in Scotland?” only his well-known vegetarianism would’ve prevented him biting your hand off.
Yet, now, we’re told by various commentators that these elections have been “a bloody nose for Labour”. How does that work ???
Good point
I’m wondering whether Labour’s vote would not have been significantly higher had they backed an OUT vote and put forward the REAL arguments for that and stole UKIP’s false thunder?
I think voters often want the change we all need but don’t have a clear place to go to express it. The Left is failing on this one and it’s not Corbyn’s fault it’s largely to do with a Labour Party that is not yet in a Post-neo-=Liberal place.
There is no argument for out
Richard-that is absurdly dismissive-there certainly is an argument for out from the Left, you know that. Let’s star with:
1) All the Eu financial set ups are controlled by the IMF
2) The idea that there is a ‘different’ EU waiting to reveal itself is highly questionable
3) Benn’s prophecy in ’75 that the EU would be entirely in the interests of international capital has revealed itself in its total ugliness – it is institutional and cannot be changed.
4) The treatment of Greece/Ireland/Portugal etc renders the EU not fit for human purpose.
5) A country with a sovereign currency and without arbitrary debt/GDP ratios has greater flexibility-so Lisbon 123 can be got rid of.
6) The Idea that there can’t be a Left Alliance without the EU structures is ridiculous.
I agree the Left is not making these arguments but it doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
I don’t believe (1) and go on from there
‘I don’t believe (1)’-tell that to the Greeks/Latvians/Portugeuse/Spansih/Irish.
Richard I’d strongly advise watching the film, ‘On the trail of the Troika which deals with the ‘Lagarde List’ (subset of the Falciani List) and other matters, and then see if you think the Washington based IMF isn’t running the show.
I am familiar with the role of the IMF
I think you have missed the point
The IMF is challenging the ECB
“who is were on the map my become more entrenched”
You might need to run that part by me again.
Writing too early in the morning
Edit coming
Hi Richard, it is a shame that the Green Party is not doing better compared to UKIP as Green economic policy is egalitarian, and its social policy is liberal (i.e. against racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and they don’t treat people who are disabled, do not drive or care about the environment as outgroups, as per UKIP, the Tories and tabloids) but I get the feeling that when people are angry and alienated, or can’t see a better way to do things, the problem is that the Greens’ message cannot be distilled into 140 characters or a tabloid headline in the same way as UKIP and the Tory right’s messages can.
I, as a member of the Green Party, know that Greens have been accused of being middle class, woolly, unrealistic, anti-Labour and anti working class but that is not true of most of us. I personally only criticise bad Labour or other policies, and praise good ones or critique ones that are not radical enough in my opinion. I save my full criticism for Tory and UKIP policies, while offering positive alternative ideas.
Does that sound like a good theory Richard?
Greens may be too nice
But I like them for it
And there seem to be advances in Scotland
I guess they are playing the long game, but I suppose they could use emotion as well as logic but for good, e.g. is it more important that you can sit in your polluting car every day or that your children can ride safely to school, and hence get exercise, and not suffer from pollution? Another is to reach out to Tory voters who are now suffering from the cuts or unemployment, and get them to support left parties by convincing them of the arguments.
The problem with the ‘Green Party’ is, it has the wrong name. Before I became a big fan of Richards blogs, I knew little to nothing about the Green party. I believed them to be tree hugging activists without any meaningful way of stopping this horror show.
It astounds and embarrasses me that I remained ignorant for so long!
I think that is a real problem for them
I am immensely relieved that Labour didn’t get the drubbing predicted by just about everybody but Corbyn. Let’s hope there is a good win in London for Kahn.
And can we hope that the destructive attitude of the Blairite rump in the Labour party will cease their whinging and carping, and show that they are more than childish bad losers? Some MPs are still behaving atrociously. I am ashamed to be in the same party.
I think we can analyse the Scottish situation until the cows come home, and still not get a clear picture of what happened, except that this is clearly the SNP’s moment, and politics is still hugely dominated by the effects of the referendum campaign.
Wales is looking good, and in my home patch of Gower, Labour trounced the Tories for the Assembly seat, reversing the tiny margin the Tories nicked from shocked and complacent Labour in the GE.
And all this despite one of the most vicious and reprehensible campaigns from the Tories in a long time.
Labour seem to be playing the long game, and are trying to involve members and the public in terms of policy making, but above all, pushing the idea that austerity is not necessary, and that there is no need to pander to the tabloids but one can treat the electorate as adults and debate with them, firmly if necessary, but politely.
As a member of the Green Party and on the bottom left of the political compass (economically egalitarian, socially liberal), I am especially happy to work with Labour lefties, as is Caroline Lucas, Natalie Bennett and other senior Greens.Most of the electorate are not politically tribal and want good policy above all in my opinion.
I sure hope for a red, yellow or green London mayor and assembly…
Hi Helen I lukewarmly rejoined the Labour party; really I am more of a Green. It does like as if Citizen Kahn has won London quite well; so a mixed bag. I’m pleased the obnoxious electioneering by the Tory’s hasn’t worked well this time. Labour should be well ahead.
I’m with you Matt and Richard. I’m not a member of the Green Party but a long-time supporter. It’s the only genuinely progressive party in UK politics. Good to see that it gained 4 seats in Scotland and UKIP failed to register at all. Says a lot for the Scots. But it deserves to do better in England.
While manifestos are the bedrock of political movements, leadership is the icing on the cake (forgive a mixed metaphor). Ruth Davidson is a good example of how inspirational leadership can achieve results that belie the paucity of party policy. And, Farage inspires the same type of loyalty with his individual style of leadership. Maybe the same can be said of Donald Trump, though I’m drawing any direct comparison.
Sadly the Green Party has suffered from ‘vanilla’ leadership for too long. This doesn’t mean that the ‘management team’ is sub-standard but simply that electorates warm towards ‘strong’ peronalities that embody their individual aspirations (and prejudices) often blinding them to what their party actually stands for. I’m sure there’s a raft of psychological analysis that illustrates this behaviour. Elections are about achieving managerial power – not demonstrating support for an NGO.
And so – to Corbyn. However decent a human being he may be, he simply is not suited (no pun intended) to communicate the Labour Party’s message to a wider audience. Outside it’s traditional heartlands, the party is gradually losing support, albeit its strength is still far greater than the MSM would have you believe.
With such depressingly low turn-outs it’s difficult to come to an accurate conclusion as to what’s really going on. In England, the poor are less likely to vote than the rich. And younger voters are less likely to vote than older ones. Both these basic facts play into the hands of right-wing parties. At least in Scotland – and to a lesser extent Wales – there has been a revived interest in national politics across the board which can only be good for their democracy. But until STV PR is introduced England will remain an electoral basket-case.
Which is why Richard’s headline is regrettably true.
I think that’s unfair to Caroline Lucas – who I confess is a friend
I agree she’s an eloquently fiesty MP but she’s not leader of the Party, is she? In Taoist terminology (lol) it needs to get a better Yin /Yang balance, if that makes any sense.
Last sentence 2nd para should read … ‘though I’m NOT drawing any direct comparison’.
Between 1997 & 2015 Labour lost approx 4.2 million votes. Expecting Corbyn to reverse this within 1 year (or even 5 years) given all the sniping etc from the PLP, the corporate media & biased BBC journalists will not be easy. Hopefully in time the message that there is an alternative to austerity will get more support.
Exactly, Neil. These are very early days for New Old Labour. It will take at least 2 years to develop a comprehensive set of policies to take to the country. Scotland needs some special attention. It’s a pity that Neil Findlay is not leading. The SNP is not a genuine socialist party as it likes to portray itself. And it will help when we finally get to boot out support for Trident.
Indeed-it may need more than 4 years, unfortunately. To be honest, the media should be abasing themselves in front of Corbyn who has withstood the most viscous and profound assault on him for months on end. Even now the Telegraph almost daily has an anti-Corbyn article absolutely trashing him. Only a few days ago they were predicting massive losses for Labour and a coup. It hasn’t happened and again he’s withstood the hail of arrows. It’s clear the media is getting more and more scared.
Totally off subject but interesting. Dissidentvoice.org in USA has an article on 03/05/16 about the bank of North Dakota (the only state owned bank in America) Their results apparently surpass Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs and serve to reinforce every statement you have made about a State owned Bank.
Do follow it up
It’s an astonishing story
I’m aware of this Bank and it is a fascinating story and once again helps me to understand that America is a much more complicated and varied country than it portrays itself to the world.
This is why I think the problem with America is its political system and the elites who inhabit it – not the American people themselves.
An therein lies hope for all of us.
Simon
1) All the Eu financial set ups are controlled by the IMF.
The lack of accountability and transparency at the ECB is an ECB problem, not an IMF problem. The ECB was set up to control inflation as a causal element in economic strife and possible conflict between nations that can result. It was not set up to deal with a financial crisis of this magnitude because like everyone else, no-one thought it could happen until it did.
2) The idea that there is a ‘different’ EU waiting to reveal itself is highly questionable.
Questionable – Yes – but so are all your assertions and even the one that I have which is to stay and fight for a better EU. It’s all questionable Simon. Get over it. But lets ask the right questions eh?
3) Benn’s prophecy in ’75 that the EU would be entirely in the interests of international capital has revealed itself in its total ugliness — it is institutional and cannot be changed.
Why is TTIP seemingly stalled? The treaty framework can actually be used by everyone – including those who remain in it to improve the way it works – not just the corporations. All we need are able politicians to make it work. Does Nigel Farage go there and take part and help to make things work? Or does it just pull publicity stunts and harangue his fellow MEPS?
And what about my favourite Tory MEP Dan Hannan? Oh, Dan the Man Hannan!! What a guy! Somehow I can’t see Hannan beavering away to make Europe work for his voters either. Mind you I can see him beavering away to undermine it.
4) The treatment of Greece/Ireland/Portugal etc renders the EU not fit for human purpose.
What a load of tripe. Honestly! My view is that it has adequately served human purpose by helping to promote peace in the Eurozone since its creation. What better ‘human purpose’ is there than the prevention of war among states who have a history (evidence) of conflict?
But that’s right, the EU is not fit for purpose to deal with an American created financial crash. So, lets give it the mandate to create money and invest in EU infrastructure and create jobs and wealth and also create a mandate to take the US to an international court and demand reparations for the financial damage America has caused. The EU did not cause this crisis Simon.
The EU did not make the Irish panic and then pour its Euros into its banking system. If I recall, the Irish did that all by themselves. That was a local solution. Austerity is indeed a crap policy – but it is still seen as an orthodox response to financial crises the world over – not just the EU.
Greece? Portugal? It seems to me that they all had slightly different underlying issues that the 2008 crash made worse that were determined by internal government policy rather than EU policy – even if this was in response to EU policy.
5) A country with a sovereign currency and without arbitrary debt/GDP ratios has greater flexibility-so Lisbon 123 can be got rid of.
It might be a good idea to get rid of the Euro Simon – the currency – sure, lets consider it – but not the EU – the treaty framework. Don’t chuck the baby out with the bath water.
6) The Idea that there can’t be a Left Alliance without the EU structures is ridiculous.
Nonsense. The treaty framework provides a unified basis from which to find common ground between interests Europe-wide. You are actually criticising the behaviour of politicians – not the treaty framework itself – without realising it. But I don’t blame you for that.
There is too much tribalism in politics at the moment. Too many modern politicians come from the wrong background – say adversarial backgrounds such as business and law when what we really need are people who can actually work with others.
PSR, your last paragraph, and I quote:
“There is too much tribalism in politics at the moment. Too many modern politicians come from the wrong background — say adversarial backgrounds such as business and law when what we really need are people who can actually work with others.”
really stirred memories for me and rang bells, because, when I was Chair of the Economic Development Committee on the L.B. Barnet (of very recent infamy for its preposterous TOTAL outsourcing of ALL services to “Crapita”, that led to major cock-ups in yesterday’s elections), I worked closely with my MEP, Pauline Green, who, as Leader of the then majority Socialist Group in the European Parliament (this was the mid 1990’s), I publicly announced at the 1996 “Barnet 2000 Conference” as “the Prime minister of Europe”, and I always remember that Pauline said that one of the delights of the European Parliament was just that – the fact that people were willing to work together across Party lines in a collaborative way.
The problem is, of course, the the European Parliament is NOT a sovereign body, but effectively only an advisory one, with little powers of real legislation. A REAL Parlient with REAL legislative powers, and DIRECTLY accountable and whose power are NOT funnelled through the Council of Ministers is the real sine qua non of a truly effective and responsive EU.
Andrew
Very informative.
And your last paragraph illustrates to me the total lie perpetrated by the pro- BREXIT mafia – that the UK will ‘get its sovereignty back’ if we leave. We never lost it in the first place – ever.
EU ‘enforcement’ of the treaty is pretty weak it seems to me which it why it cannot stop the UK government polices like the bedroom tax etc., and only comment on them. And BTW – as far as money is concerned we still can print our own.
Yet there are posters here who will blame the EU for that as well!! To expect that from the EU would mean that it would have to be more powerful than any sovereign government – precisely what critics of the EU don’t want anyway!!