The Conservatives won Newark. That should be no surprise: this was its 44th safest seat and the fact that Labour has won it in living memory does not change that.
But that was not really the story, as everyone knows. The story was that UKIP came second, Labour third and the LibDems sixth.
Now, taking any message from by-elections is hard. Some will note that this is the first Tory by-election win when in government since 1989, but I wouldn't: that's desperation stakes time.
What interests me more is the potential evidence of two strong trends. One is that women did not vote for UKIP. About 36% of men did but only 16% of women. That is a seismic difference which suggest it cannot possibly get near power in this country.
Second, is the apparent rise of tactical voting to keep UKIP out. That may have explained the collapse in LibDem votes. It may have explained the lacklustre Labour campaign: better by far, I am sure it thought, a predictable Conservative win than a UKIP victory. I think a good few held their noses and voted Tory to achieve that goal. I can see why.
But in that case this might herald something we had not expected, and that is a return to two party politics. If people desert the LibDems very widely and coalesce around what is perceived to be the lead party with a chance of keeping UKIP out (which only occasionally is LibDem) does this mean that we will actually see more seats going to the two lead parties and that, far from breaking the mould, revulsion at UKIP may reinforce it?
That is an intriguing possibility but also worrying if that reinforces the neoliberal consensus that currently dominates politics by giving little hope of a break though of new thinking to challenge that hegemony.
We need political change in this country to ensure the majority get the chance they need by giving them access to the human and financial capital that is essential for their success. We do not need a politics based on fear to achieve that: this is, I am sure, why UKIP does not work for women. But equally we do not need the status quo either and perversely that may be exactly what UKIP might deliver.
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:
I can think of one party, Richard but where did you get the second one from? (smiley emoticon)-you’re vision must be blurring, early in the morning!
It’s situations like this which have led people like me to try and fight apathy, get more involved. I have joined National Health Action Party because I’ve had enough of the traditional politics and their private interests and want to be part of a movement that doesn’t just talk but acts – we need parties who think and start doing things differently.
I understand that
I think Clive and your team are doing a good job
If only we had a transferable vote so i could vote for you and then, if you don’t win, transfer it to another party which I could live with. Our system forces people to make a guess about the outcome and often opt for a second choice to keep out the least desired. We need a system which better represents our views -esp. as we are told we now live in a four party system, more like two and two halves.
I agree
Still not sure how anyone can call what we have as more that a corporately captured one party system. When the choice is between austerity for the foreseeable future and more austerity and trade agreements that override Governments and democracy -we can be clear it is a one party, or more truthfully, a NO-Party state.
I totally agree with Simon. If I were standing, say as an Independent, I would be making a great play on voters having an initial yes/no choice between me and the “neo-liberal/corporate consensus”. If you choose the consensus, only then do you need to decide which subset of it you prefer, which then would come down to whose face or clever rhetoric you like.
I agree, Nicola-but i feel the ‘anti-austerity’ groups need to align with those wanting banking reform and debt free money creation -without the latter the ideology of austerity will remain intact. But I agree with Richard, the NHAP is an important voice.
Hi Simon and Richard,
Thanks for your replies. Simon, I was a little unsure of what you meant by alignment. We (as in local members of different parties with an interest in saving the nhs) have looked at ideas with others, through a cafe economique event / West Yorkshire People’s Assembly which were broadly along the lines of debt free money creation, but it didn’t go anywhere further at the time.
Hi Nicola-I was just trying to say that austerity can only be challenged by exposing the ideology and myths of the present monetary set up. Groups like Positive Money have proposals to reform the banking system and set up debt free money creation which can be used by elected Governments for positive social purposes like the NHS. You can check out their website here:
http://www.positivemoney.org/
There are others working along similar lines to start a debate on who controls the money supply.
Hi Simon, thanks for clarifying, will look at the site.