This was the full by-election result in Chester last night:
Labour won with a swing of 13% despite already holding the seat and the former MP having been discredited.
This is the worst Tory result in the seat since 1832.
And no doubt Keir Starmer is rubbing his hands in glee.
I would however draw his attention to this article in The Chartist by Mary Southcott:
A Labour majority now would let it deliver on the wish of its members for real democracy in the UK.
Will Starmer deliver? I hope so.
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 had a conversation with a labour councillor last week who said that they were not going into an election with PR in the manifesto. The phrase was ‘the MPs don’t want it’.
Only one view of course.
Obviously then Ian, they don’t want the votes of the very many progressives who want a proper voting system, like myself. Vote Green.
I elect to have very little faith in our electoral system. I’m deeply suspicious of any boundary changes since reading about how they contributed to Clem Attlee’s government in the early 50’s.
The system we have is easily (and skilfully) gerrymandered. Perhaps by both sides even but particularly by the Establishment.
I also recommend Citizen Clem about Atlee’s goverment.
I’m afraid that Starmer will not deliver. Not PR, regardless of what the wider party has voted for.
I think the Labour leadership strategy is simple. They just want to win power. I think that the leadership believe that the FPTP electoral system is still working. They are stuck in the two party mindset of FPTP. Opinion polls are now suggesting that Labour can win, mainly because the Tories are facing wipe out. This presents several problems though.
1 – Labour have no chance of turning the tide of support for the SNP in Scotland. Like the Tories, they are a minority party in Scottish politics now. That will not change.
2 – Many English seats that they will win they will largely do so because of Tory failure, rather than what Labour have to offer. We could see many Tory voters switching to the Lib Dems, letting Labour in. It’s hardly a vote of confidence in what Labour have to offer. These seats are just as likely to go back to the Tories at the next election.
3 – Starmer is essentially “doing a Blair”, in that Labour seem lite on policy. What alternative are they really offering? For example, I feel that there will never be a better time, in the interests of national security alone, to push for public ownership of essential services like gas, electricity, water and rail. Privatisation has largely failed in these areas, simply creating private monopolies that fleece us. Labour are afraid to give us the alternative, I believe because of the “that’s what Corbyn would do” factor. Current Labour leadership fear that any move that is seen as left wing will provide ammunition for the Tories and their press lapdogs.
The irony here is that I feel that if Labour did adopt PR as policy, it would potentially kill off the Tories once and for all. If PR was introduced I think the Tory Party would most likely split. It’s clear the ERG are a party within the party. Outside of extremists in Parliament like the DUP, the Tories have no friends. They have stabbed everyone else in the back – the LibDems, even the DUP. Then there is Farage. If we had PR, he would come back, probably as leader of Reform UK or some other right wing party and he would get at least 10-15% of traditional right wingers who vote Tory under FPTP. I think the Tories become a minority party under PR, perhaps with around 25% of the vote. It would finish them, that is why they are are so desperate to keep the FPTP gravy train going.
Come on Labour, wake up and smell the coffee. You have two choices. Stick with FPTP and keep the Tories alive to fight another day or move to PR and kill them off.
I know where I stand.
I know where I stand as well
Agree 100% MarP. Labour’s combination of tribalism and cowardice is pathetic. Not worth voting for.
Excellent analysis. I’m really hoping that Labour don’t get a huge majority because Starmer will see this as justification for retaining FPTP. He will only introduce PR if his hand is forced.
Totally agree with the analysis MarP. There are some other factors in play…
It looks like Labour has an unofficial deal with Ed Davey but is ambivalent about it and still trying got make Labour look attractive to disillusioned tories. The big question is will so called Red Wall seats return to such an anaemic labour, they are the places will to where Enough is Enough seems to be cutting through, the unions have seem to have given up on labour policy battles and have made a (welcome) return. The PLP may find itself being subject to raw power – if your not supporting us we are going to be holding back some of our political funds, expect less affiliation in the future. Social change as well as an individualised Labour Party is driving this. Two measures of how the Labour Party has lost touch with the base it retains and lost its way generally can be seen in in the election statistics CPB-7529 (A Century of Elections)
* The number of Labour MPs who were previously political organisers has massively increased; in 1979 it was 13/258, by 2015 it was 59/232 (i.e from 5% to 25%)
* The number of Labour MP’s who were previously manual workers has massively decreased; in 1979 it was 83/258, by 2015 it was 22/232 (i.e. from 32% to 9%)
The SNP are not going away (even the 1974-9 Lab Gov had 32 Scottish MPs). The Greens get nothing. It could still a hung parliament with Labour as largest party using a confidence and supply arrangement which would mean a continuation of culture wars and tribalism. But if it is a rerun of 1997 we will get Tory lite (we won, no deals honoured, remember Ashdown got shafted). It makes me angry to find I am actually hoping Labour doesn’t win outright.
All thats bad enough, but anaemic labour continues to play the game as if democracy was healthy. Just a few bad people using cronyism and partying. But in fact there is a deeper issue
* Money is being used in ways that avoid, bypass or move too fast for electoral commission scrutiny
* Social media misinformation and micro targeting taking place on a massive scale
* Photo id for voting
* Curtailing judicial review
* Limiting the right to protest because of “annoyance”
* Removing public interest defence from whistle-blowers
* Putting the electoral commission (supposedly independent) under ministerial control
This is documented as a grave concern by many, see; Open Democracy, Jonathan Friedland, and even those on the right like George Oborne and David Davies. We know these are the elements of a well tried right wing play-book, use democracy to get in and then use the law to change the rules to stay in.
The only thing saving us so far is their incompetence mixed with naïf ideological belief (some of them actually believe their own fairytales and expect the rest of us to wake up when prosperity returns, they don’t realise (forgive the pun) we woke already.
And on top of that, outside the petty, delusional squabbles of a country running on empty, the actual world situation (global heating and international power politics is creating natural disasters, war and mass migration). This is indeed a time for bold, radical leadership and its nowhere to be seen.
If we get the leaders we deserve we really have done something wrong.
We have and we do. What we do wrong is mass individual consumerism, we live at 1.7 planet times beyond our means and from our leaders we still want promises of growth, we are still listening to snake oil salesmen and loan sharks.
Some of this comes from an essay I wrote in October 2021
https://brianfishhope.com/index.php/supplements/126-kier-starmer-and-that-speech-october-2021/461-kier-starmer-and-that-conference-speech
Thanks
Unfortunately, the arguments are so strong for PR that it forces the conclusion that FPTP suits Labour only too well. They never really have to put forward anything other than Tory Lite under FPTP. With PR they would have to hold their own against real policy competition for votes.
I know a little bit about Chester and Samantha Dixon is highly regarded as an excellent local leader (previously of the Council) prior to her candidacy.
I’m sure Starmer will try to make as much mileage out of it as possible but he won’t get so lucky everywhere.
I know a little bit about Chester and Samantha Dixon was highly regarded as an excellent local leader (previously of the Council) prior to her candidacy.
I’m sure Starmer will try to make as much mileage out of it as possible but he won’t get so lucky everywhere.
Our (Labour) MP, Cat Smith was introducing a Bill on PR on 29 November – Labour is not silent on the matter… and as regards personal voting, think tactically!
from Hansard:
BILL PRESENTED
ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Cat Smith presented a Bill to introduce a system of
proportional representation for Parliamentary elections,
for elections for directly-elected mayors in England, for
local authority elections in England and for police and
crime commissioner elections in England and Wales.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on
Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 201).
But Cat Smith is one of those ignored by the Labour leadership
Our constitution serves not a parliamentary system, but a Party Parliamentary system. Party in a Party serve the interest of Party. Party will not vote against its own interests. The de Hondt system was selected by Labour, supported by Conservatives and LibDems for Scottish PR, because it was the system that retained the fundamental power in the hands of Party rather than electorate. Party will never vote for PR. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.
That should read:
“Party in a Party system serves only the interest of Party.”
You can take that as having the dependability of a de la Rochefoucauld Maxim.
During the Labour leadership contest there was one candidate who was fully committed to PR and a progressive alliance, Clive Lewis, and he didn’t even get enough MP nominations to get on the ballot, which shows how the PLP feels about PR.
The prime goal for the Labour right is to keep the left out of power. Under FPTP they feel they can keep the left locked up in a box (although they don’t seem to realise that what they are doing is more like holding a lid down on a boiling pan – when the pressure does eventually build up enough and can’t be contained anymore it will be all the more forceful). If they moved to PR then the left would be able to get more power and, horror of horrors, at some point the Labour right would end up in a coalition government with the left. They would much rather the Tories win power 2/3 of the time than let the left anywhere near power. That’s why Starmer will never support PR.
That’s why I have not been celebrating the demise of the Tories, because by far the least bad option is for Labour to get as few seats as possible while still being able to form a government so they are so weak they have to accede to Lib Dem demands to give us PR. I didn’t think it was possible but Starmer has somehow managed to get me hoping for a Tory revival (to a certain point).
Clive is at risk in Labour
Liking a tweet by a Green is enough to be expelled
Clive is, like me, a member of the Green New Deal Group with Caroline Lucas
All labour MPs are at risk. The only one who has been allowed through without being challenged is the tory who crossed the floor, Christian Wakeford.
Fewer than 50% of the electorate voted, which shows how people don’t care about FPTP. With PR they would feel like their vote counted for something so many more might vote, but not sure how that works with by-elections. Only 3 parties kept their deposits.
I agree with your analysis Richard. What will be interesting is what will happen with the House of Lords. Given that the HoL is currently the most powerful centre of opposition to the Tories, I wonder whether Starmer’s plan to abolish it is really wise. If he sets up an elected chamber to replace it, he will have a real dilemma. Does he go for FPTP in defiance of his own membership or does he go for PR and set a precedent? People will wonder why what is good enough for the Lords (and of course for Party leadership elections) is not good enough for the Commons
The sensible thing for Starmer to do would be to get rid of the lords as it is and have a fully elected second house using PR. That way he might bring back some of the labour members who have left the party.