Labour won both of yesterday's by-elections in what were seemingly rock-solid Tory seats.
The swing in Tamworth was 23.9%, with the LibDems falling to a miserly 1.6% as people very clearly voted tactically to be rid of a Tory.
In Mid Bedfordshire the swing was 20.5% even though the vote was split three ways. The Mid Beds win was the biggest majority (by number) overturned in modern by-election history.
That's the facts done. Now what to think about it?
First, note that in both cases turnout was low, as is always the case in by-elections. The biggest winner, by far, on the night was indifference. The diehards turned up to vote: the more causal voters simply stayed away. That's important: it isn't the diehards who decide general election results. The casual voters do. The usual warnings on extrapolation of this result to a general election (which will, nonetheless, happen) apply in that case.
Second, both former Tory MPs had disgraced themselves in differing ways. It was hardly surprising that there was additional anti-Tory sentiment in these locations. Voters had reason to be angry with the previous choice by the incumbent party, and their choice of candidate, even, in the case of one of these seats. That was clearly a factor and, with other recent wins, will not be replicated at a general election. Again, caution is required.
Third, let's also not avoid the fact that this was a very good night for Labour. These exceptional swings can only confirm the opinion that they had a good party conference, face a government in total meltdown and appear to the casual observer to be disciplined (which voters like) and so continue to have every reason to think that they will be in government sometime next year.
This is precisely the reason why I will continue to focus on what they have to say here. There is little point paying much attention to anything the Tories say now: the reality is that most of what they plan will not happen. They probably do not have parliamentary support for much of it, despite their apparent majority. They will limp through the next year before, most likely, heading to the Opposition benches for at least a decade, and very much longer if only Labour had the sense to do PR.
There is another reason for that attention, though. Instinctively, even as a non-party loyalist, I would, as a person of left-of-centre orientation, prefer a Labour to a Tory government based on past understanding of what those parties are. But, the past is not always a good guide to where we are now, and with Labour, it certainly is not.
More than ever, Labour is profoundly neoliberal. Its instincts are to always let the market lead. This is even true in one of its more radical policies, which is GB Energy. As far as I can work out that is nothing more than a private sector contracting exercise. That is profoundly unLabour.
Worse, is the intolerance within Labour. Its own membership has felt that. But the narrative is also intolerant, whether towards benefit claimants, or to protestors, or to people not living in 'hard-working families', whatever they might be. The idea of Labour being a party of inclusion is now wholly absent as far as I can see.
And then there is the simple fact that, almost predictably, given everything it is saying about financial prudence, none of Labour's figures seem to add up. Its claim that it can deliver growth and then enhanced government services not only defies what is known about the proper ordering of these events if they are to happen but also contradicts the obvious truth that in a recessionary environment only increased government spending breaks the downward cycle. There is no sign that Labour understands this. As a result, all it says is economic nonsense. It's just not quite as bad as what the Tories say as far as the electorate is concerned.
In other words, Labour is only ahead because, given a binary choice between chaos and hardship, hardship wins. That's not enough reason to be cheered by the prospect of a Labour government.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Indeed. The political pundit class in this country speak of “massive swings to Labour” or “overturning huge Tory majorities.” There are, however, other interpretations of last night’s by-election results.
In Mid-Beds the Labour result in 2019 was 14028, in 2023 it was 13872 so Labour actually got 156 fewer votes than in 2019
In Tamworth the Labour result in 2019 was 11719, in 2023 it was 10908 so the Labour vote fell by 811 votes.
The voters of Tamworth and Mid-Beds have clearly decided to give the Tories a kicking, but this does not mean people are enthused about Labour. For those of us on the Left, the one positive will be watching the political wipeout of the Conservative Party. Hopefully to be consigned to the dustbin of politics forever.
One might have hoped Labour would see this as a sign that the country wants a kinder, more progressive politics, but I doubt we’ll get that under Starmer.
DAC, you got the Tamworth Labour vote count the wrong way round, so they did slightly increase their actual vote.
Your point remains though – Labour failed to attract new voters, and the Tories only got their diehards. Most of their previous voters just decided to not bother voting at all.
You are correct Richard Kirby. I appear to have got the results the wrong way around. That’ll teach me to post early, with sleep fog and myopic Lefty spectacles. So yes, in Tamworth, Starmer and Co can indeed boast of a modest increase in the Labour vote. Even so, this is hardly the seismic result for Labour being presented to us by the pundit class.
Don’t worry
To err is to be human
Agreed.
Labour needs money to fight the Tories so it has to look money friendly in my view as well as fight the huge court case going on in the background over its internecine fighting with and intolerance of the Left.
If the stories about doing deals with the Tories are to be believed, then the Tories will be back, the ‘most sophisticated electorate in the world’ will no doubt vote them in again once there is another Neoliberal economic disaster in the future.
I think politics is in a new low. Many of our politicians are liars, frauds and corrupt to boot and have no right to be in charge of anything because of the false narrative lobbying and ‘political advisors’ ram down their throats.
Speaking of disasters, I’m looking out my window today at a slow-mo disaster today.
It’s grim out there this morning
If all the Reform voters had voted Tory, there would be two new Conservative MPs this morning.
This is similar to what happened at national level in 2010 where the UKIP voted was sufficient to stop the Conservatives having an overall majority.
Interesting times as the Conservatives look at what Reform policies that they can adopt.
You assume voters are that malleable
Lab need to understand one thing. There is a lot of tactical voting going on, the main intention of which is to get rid of the Tories. Given our undemocratic voting system of FPTP, a tactical vote for Lab is not a positive choice in their favour. It is a borrowed vote. If in the constituency that I live in there is a chance to unseat the Tory by voting Lab, I will do so. I do not vote for them with any conviction though. I will only vote for them because of my deep dislike (I’m tempted to use the word hatred) for the Tories and everything they stand for. If however, we get a Lab govern as Tory lite, you will not get my vote again (I suspect many others will feel the same).
So Labour be warned, you are on notice that if you get power you will need to be different. Failure to do so will result in a return of the Tories with whatever destructive right wing agenda they adopt. Many people who vote for Labour next time will want genuine change. It is no good Starmer talking about labour having changed if all it has become is a slightly softer version of an extreme right wing Tory Party. That’s not what the majority want.
Agreed
Apart from the bit about you voting labour which I have no intention of doing unless they come up with some real progressive policies like electoral reform, I agree MarP.
New labour mark2 isn’t good enough, especially in light of the huge problems re the climate disaster, populism, growing right wing extremism, Putin, the middle east and the state of the UK itself.
MarP said: “So Labour be warned, you are on notice that if you get power you will need to be different. Failure to do so will result in a return of the Tories with whatever destructive right wing agenda they adopt.”
This is a legitimate worry for the future, but as a promotor of Phil Burton-Cartledge’s excellent work – his book “The Party’s Over” from Verso is excellent – the changing demographics may point to a different course.
Phil explains a possible alternative course here:
https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2023/10/forecasting-future-of-tories.html
He’s right: Starmer is the ideal candidate for the Tories as they move every further into Trumpland conspiracy politics. If he delivers nothing – as is likely – the Tories could be back after a term. That is my great fear and most on the left do not see that.
I would argue that most on the actual left do see that, and worry about it. The centre/centre-left however… I get the impression they the whole thing as just a game, or sport, swapping management every decade or so, while the rules, and general outcomes, stay the same.
Richard, I liked the distinction you’ve drawn between Labour and Tories. We are talking new Labour 2.0 under SKS is now occupying the old One Nation Tory party position if that makes sense. For old Labour voters this will not be left wing enough but for conservative English voters and the FPTP system it might work. But what good is power when all you want to do is ensure your tribe can now get their snouts in the trough?
I see nothing ‘one nation’ about Starmer’s Labour.
I see resolute neoliberalism, which is anything but one nation in its nature.