It could be argued that my suggestion that we have seen peak Labour, made yesterday was either premature or wrong given the overnight by-election results that saw the party make two impressive gains.
In Kingswood the swing was significant in a seat being contested for the last time as it will disappear at the general election:
Five things stood out here.
One was a tactical, albeit small, switch from LibDems to Labour.
Another was the rise in the Green vote. I suspect that those who cannot stomach Labour went there.
Third, Reform did well, but nowhere near as well as UKIP did in 2015.
Fourth, the combined Tory and Reform vote could have beaten Labour, just.
Fifth, there was a substantial swing to Labour.
In Wellingborough this was the story:
The Tory collapse here was spectacular. Selecting the partner of the former disgraced MP was clearly not a good idea by the local Tories.
Reform still did worse than UKIP in 2015.
Again, there seems to have been a slight LibDem to Labour swing.
The Greens did not gain from Labour.
The swing to Labour was almost a record:
That so many of these large swings are recent is very telling.
The share secured by Reform was a record:
Note, however, comments made above about these performances compared to UKIP.
So,, what to think?
First these are by-election results. They are not good indicators of general election outcomes. Turnouts were, predictably, quite low. With double the number voting in a general election things might be very different.
Second, the apathy vote might have been usual indifference. It could also have been a deliberate statement. We just don't know. But, if the Question Time audience was anything to go by that last night, ‘a curse on all your houses' might be the sentiment. That said, they were as contemptuous of right wing sentiment as is now commonly the case these days and when Lucy Powell for Labour got surprisingly angry with the Tory on grounds of Tory sleaze the audience very much seemed to like it.
Third, even if these are by-elections and special circumstances apply in both cases, any pretence that the Tories can win the general election must be shattered.
Fourth, Labour will be smug. They have no reason to be given the fiasco heading their way in two weeks.
Fifth, Reform is proving there is a hardcore right wing vote willing to split the right wing.
Sixth, on the left voters are being more tactical. As a result, conclusions for the LibDems and Greens are hard to call.
So, was I wrong? I cannot tell. I might have been. Equally those constituencies were subject to odd situations. In Wellingborough a disgraced MP was replaced by his partner. That was absurd. In Kingswood the former Tory MP quit in disgust with his party. It wasn't a compelling vote of support for the replacement candidate.
The answer is, we must wait and see.
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:
Thanks for your summary.
All I can see is people who are still capable of voting Tory.
These numpties are deeply worrying to me.
And what about our wonderful swing voters? Who liked the fact that Labour is not too different from the Tories and whose only real factor is that they have not been in power getting up to what the Tories have been getting up to (but probably will anyway when/if they get in). They have what they want – LINO or TCP.
It’s not much is it to restore one’s faith in ‘democracy’?
Count me out.
It’s clear to me that the electorate aren’t particularly voting for someone/something but just want rid of what we have.
Or to put it another way, 25% will vote Conservative in Britain, however badly they foul the nest; or, frankly however foul they prove to be. In an FPTP system, with ID cards, changing constituencies boundaries favourable to the Conservative Party overall, and a demographic, electoral gerontocracy; this is a fairly bullet-proof bottom line to protect the Conservatives from defeat; while anything around 30%+ will probably give them a 40+ seat majority. They need only keep breathing.
What does that tell us? Nothing will change; no matter what. Complacency, ignorance and inertia wins every time
It is indeed amazing that 25% of the population will still vote for a Tory party that has vividly demonstrated that it is dishonest, incompetent, ignorant, profoundly anti-democratic, greedy, amoral and are generally a bunch of lying nasty bullies.
There is always the football fan’s lifelong support for their club under any circumstances explanation, but the core Tory vote goes much further than that and makes you look at your fellow citizens in a whole new way.
John
I suggest these measures.
there will always be those sort of people around, so we need to neuter the Conservative party.
1 we need a new regulatory body for the newspapers. There has to be a way to prevent tax dodging billionaires having an undue influence on our politics.
2 a system of proportional representation
3 like most other democracies, we need a system of automatic registration of voters. Millions are missing from the roll.
4 we need new rules about political donations. Possibly some public financing of parties.
5 Think tanks should not be allowed on the BBC until their funding is transparent and disclosed.
6 There needs to be an improvement on political reporting. We have short interviews-often with constant interruptions. There needs to be opportunities for people to explain why they advocate their polices in more depth. Al Jazeera can do it.
7 Public ignorance is exploited. For example, polls show a lot of people over estimate the number of migrants by several times. Few know what quantitative easing is yet we cannot have a serious discussion on the financing the state without it. In other words we need better reporting and need to see fewer editors, special advisors and former politicians asked for their opinions and more experts consulted.
All we need is a reforming government and there’s the problem.
Excellent Ian I could not agree more. Structural changes favour the Tories. If you control the News you control the Message (Cameron about the BBC). Newspapers need sorted out. Voting system medieval.
Lab playing it well to give papers nowhere to go but sadly in the process have made themselves like old style centre R Tories in many areas. Interesting to see centre L LDs pushed aside by split R Reform vote. God help us if either they or Tories achieve power.
Ian,
If you haven’t already come across it, you might be interested in this report from Open Britain: https://open-britain.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Democracy-Goals-1-1.pdf
I haven’t yet got beyond the first few pages, but reading your list I thought you might be interested in the goals they set out early on in the report.
Just to say many thanks for this focussed, informative analysis. If by-elections are largely reactive and local then Rochdale may likely tell us little either, except that Galloway’s share may be a very interesting gauge of people’s interest in deeper issues.
A brilliant night for Labour. With reform splitting the tory vote come the general election we should be confident Sir Kier will form a majority government..great news!!!
I presume you are a Tory from big carbon-creating business since that is whose policy agenda he is promoting .
“ i presume you are a Tory from big carbon-creating business since that is whose policy agenda he is promoting .”
No i am not at, why talk do you talk so much rubbish and just make things up?? you lambast the Greens, same with Labour you spend your whole life criticising and moaning. Do you not think Labour is an improvement on the stories? Yes or no? simple question just yes or no, no essay needed.
Yes, but only because they may be less corrupt. I see that as little to celebrate. Any person with the slightest left of centre inclination would I think agree. Your comment suggested you are nut of that inclination because Labour has no identifiable left of centre policies now.
It’s not made up Andrew
this is an extract from a website DeSmog
The Reform UK party manifesto for the 2024/25 UK general election doubts the legitimacy of climate science and questions the extent to which human activities are driving climate change:
“Reform UK fully accepts that climate change is real, after all it has happened for millions of years based on multiple factors completely outside human control or influence. Warming has of course taken place over the last approximately 150 years, with signs over recent years that it is now leveling off. Humans have had an impact on this global warming, though scientists disagree as to how much. Those who think that getting to Net Zero will stop climate change are in fact just denying reality.”
The manifesto also includes a page discussing “an honest debate on climate change”, which includes the following claims:
“The earth has increased in greenery over the last 30 years, partly thanks to higher CO2 levels. CO2 is a natural fertiliser, which is essential to plant life via photosynthesis, and without plants humans could not exist!
“The Arctic sea ice cover has increased since a low point in 2012 and is very close to 30 year average levels
“Overall sea ice cover in Antarctica has not declined in recent decades”.
The manifesto goes on to state that “Westminster’s Net Zero plans send our jobs and money overseas, making us Net Poorer and Net Colder”, adding that net zero policies are “net stupid”.
These are almost conspiracy theory assertions. Reform advocates such measures as fracking and more extraction of oil from the North Sea.
Frightening
@ Bernard Hurley,
“It is also true that CO2 stimulates plant growth which removes carbon from the atmosphere some of which eventually gets locked away as coal or oil. The problem is that this is an extremely slow process. In the past few centuries we have unlocked millions of years worth of locked up carbon…”
Warmer temperatures also stimulate growth by extending the growing season; but the carbon only gets locked up if the plants produce lignin (woody parts), whereas lettuce, for example, will only produce soft growth. The not quite out-and-out deniers that flag these up as positives are ignoring at least one major issue; sea level rise. Most of the most productive land that’s supposed to benefit from increased temperatures and CO2 levels is is relatively low lying and much of it is therefore under threat of inundation.
“…Another true statement I have seen bandied about by climate change deniers is that a tree releases as much carbon into the atmosphere when it rots as when it is burnt. The problem again is timing. Whereas a large tree can be reduced to ashes in a couple of hours it may well take a couple centuries to rot away completely in the forest.”
All vegetation produces methane as it rots; this is equally true if it rots where it grew, or the process is greatly accelerated by passing through an animal’s gut. Soft growth is more or less neutral; it takes carbon out of the atmosphere and gives it back fairly quickly. To claim that rotting trees are somehow bad, because they ultimately give carbon back is bizarre; it’s part of a natural cycle and they lock up carbon for decades, centuries, or contribute to carbon being stored permanently in forest soil.
Using trees for timber can keep it locked up too, but that’s a story for another time; my alarm will go off in little more than 6 hours.
Before I celebrate the prospect of a Labour majority government, I would like to know the answers to a few questions:
1) Are the Tories under Starmer more progressive than the Tories under Sunak?
2) Are the Tories under Starmer less corrupt than the Tories under Sunak?
3) Are the Tories under Starmer more humanitarian than the Tories under Sunak?
4) Are the Tories under Starmer more economically competent than the Tories under Sunak?
And perhaps most importantly:
5) If the answers to the previous questions should turn out to be “yes”, does the Labour leadership have the necessary courage and vision to implement the policies needed to save the NHS, to implement an ethical foreign policy and to tackle the climate crisis. In short, does it have the courage and vision necessary to lead us to a more just society?
My answers on current evidence are:
1) A little, but the gap between the two versions of Toryism seems to be narrowing daily.
2) Yes, at present, but the real test is whether the leadership can resist the corrupting influence of power. My own assessment of the character of much of the shadow cabinet is that some of them might find this very difficult, especially if the party has a large majority.
3) Prior to last October I would have answered yes to this question but Labour leadership’s respose to the events in Gaza has changed my mind.
4) My answer here is no. The economic circumstances of the majority of people may well improve under a Labour government but that would be more a matter of luck than judgment. My point is that the Conservatives, or their paymasters, know what they are doing when pursuing neoliberal policies. They know that the talk of maxed out credit cards and fiscal rules is just part of a game intended to hoodwink the uninformed and the gullible. The Labour front bench, on the other hand, seems to be pursuing neoliberalism in the manner of robots know what they have to do but have no real idea why they have to do it. In other words they are among those who have been hoodwinked.
5) I’m afraid my answer here has to be a resounding no. It is hard to think of a political leader who is more timid than Starmer. A relative of mine, now deceased, was a well known and very successful human rights lawyer. He came across as very self assured when discussing points of law in his field of expertise and he could function extremely well in a court environment where he would know precisely what are the limits of accepted behaviour. However in other contexts he always seemed afraid he might say or do something that was not quite the “right thing.” Starmer reminds me of him.
Much as I want to see the end of the Conservative government, I do not want to see a Labour majority government. A hung parliament with Labour the largest party is a far more inviting prospect. This would at least make it possible for some political sanity to prevail. A Labour majority government would at best be a palliative not a cure for society’s ills but would more likely merely be keeping the government seats warm for another, possibly more destructive, Conservative government.
“Those who think that getting to Net Zero will stop climate change are in fact just denying reality.”
As a standalone statement that is actually true, but not in the way they claim. A stopped clock springs to mind.
Net Zero isn’t the goal, it won’t solve anything; it’s merely the point at which we stop artificially increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. Net Zero doesn’t go anything like far enough; it won’t reverse AGW on its own.
I was going to make the same comment about Net Zero. This is an illustration of how true statements can be used to give totally the wrong impression.
It is also true that CO2 stimulates plant growth which removes carbon from the atmosphere some of which eventually gets locked away as coal or oil. The problem is that this is an extremely slow process. In the past few centuries we have unlocked millions of years worth of locked up carbon.
Another true stament I have seen bandied about by climate change deniers is that a tree releases as much carbon into the atmosphere when it rots as when it is burnt. The problem again is timing. Whereas a large tree can be reduced to ashes in a couple of hours it may well take a couple centuries to rot away completely in the forest.
A disaster for the Tories… but we just don’t know whether this is great for Labour.
In absolute numbers the Labour vote was unchanged versus 2019 in Wellingborough despite a complete shambles of a local selection process; in Kingswood it fell.
What we DO know is that the Tory vote cratered mainly because they did not turnout. In a General Election they might come back and they still might vote Tory. What odds are the bookmakers quoting on Labour holding both these seats in the General election?
Other than demoralising the Tory activists and energising Labour activists I don’t think we know anything more this morning than we did last night.
An interesting issue is the low turnout, a lot of people abstained probably on the grounds that although they might not want to vote Conservative they are not enthralled by Labour (which is conservative itself!). In Kingswood the total labour vote fell from 16,492 in 2019 to 11,176; while in Wellingborough the labour vote went up marginally by 107 from 13,737 to 13,844. The question is how will those who abstained vote in a general election?
Turnout figures are difficult to interpret. But data on the Guardian Politics Live blog this morning for turnout in 16 by-elections over the last couple of years puts them in perspective. Turnout in these 16 by-elections ranged from a low of 24% to a high of 52%, with a median around 41%, not disimilar from yesterday’s 37% & 38%.
Data posted at 09.28 GMT:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/16/kingswood-wellingborough-byelections-sunak-starmer-labour-conservatives-results-uk-politics-live-friday
Those disillsioned left of centre Labour voters, who feel the Labour Party has left them, but who maybe have not yet left the Labour Party (either literally or in terms of support) may look at the results and conclude that Labour will win the next election, regardless of what happens between now and then. They may feel that they can safely use their votes elsewhere, knowing that they will not be enabling a surprise Tory comeback. They may look to support a more forward looking agenda, and vote Green, Plaid, or SNP. I would not blame them.
If you look at the size of the Labour vote you see that massive swings are largely abstentions in the Tory vote. It does suggest, as above, that there is 20%+ voting right wing core. Why? Xenophobia. Ignorance. False patriotism. The illusion that being self-assumed middle class means you vote Tory. . If you are a Hindu, you have Modi all over your social media promoting Hindutja fascism, and so on. Cognitive dissonance reigns supreme and exploited by the Levidos of politics.
I have a brother and a son who vote Tory, both ex forces. The rest of the family used to be solid Labour BTW.
I always counsel caution over election prediction, and Tory gerrymandering plus FPTP means they have a solid base.
I wonder whether we’re trying to read far too much into the detail of these results? It seems to me that many voters use a far less sophisticated decisions process. Ignoring those who always vote for ‘their team’, it goes:
I like my life -> vote for current Government;
I hate my life -> vote for opposition (to left or right of current, depending on prejudices).
Maybe all that these results show is that a huge proportion of the electorate hate their lives at the moment.
Clive Parry ‘s point is right: the Labour vote in Wellingborough, where the previous candidate was expelled for sexual misconduct, stayed the same. In Kingswood it actually went down by a third. These are strange times.
Describing it in terms of a percentage change hides this – as does talk of a “swing” to Labour. “Swing” implies conservative voters changing their vote to Labour, which then rides on a massive wave of popularity. But instead the conservative vote collapsed leaving Labour standing. – Unless there is something more complicated with the numbers, and some conservatives voted Labour, with an equivalent number of labour voters disappearing. Whatever it is, there is no wave of support.
I am still surprised that discontented conservatives are not voting Liberal, as in the past. Conservatives who could not bring themselves to support Labour could vote Liberal without a qualm. Is this tactical voting, as in what’s the point? Or that the Liberals are busted too?
May I suggest that Labour has nothing to celebrate in Kingswood where Conservative plus Reform would have beaten Labour. Both seats were Conservative, both would have been affected by the by-election phenomenon of voting against the sitting government.
I don’t see much to extrapolate from here, other than Labour should be starting to worry.
Maybe Kingswood constituents didn’t go out to vote because they know that the constituency is disappearing at the next election, just like mine.
Some of the voters will be moving to Rees-Mogg’s constituency.
The best thing from yesterday’s votes was watching my MP, Richard Holden, make am idiot of himself on every programme there was rtying to put a good light on the results, and not telling Noch Ferrari whether anyone wants him to stand next election.
In Wellingborough, comparing the votes from 2019 to 2024 is interesting.
In 2019, Tories polled 32,277 votes
In 2024, Tories polled 7,408 votes
This is a decrease of 24,869 (77%)
How many of these votes did Labour get
In 2019, Labour polled 13,737 votes
In 2024, Labour polled 13,844 votes
This is an increase of 107 votes (0.8%)
So Labour picked up 107/24869 = 0.4% votes.
This “swing” is so small, that all of Labour’s new voters could have come from the Lib Dems, or even the Greens.
In 2019, the turnout was 51,913 (64.3%)
In 2024, the turnout was 30,145 (38.0%)
So 21,768 people stayed at home, it looks like they could have Tory votes. If they turned up in General Election, the results could look very different.
At the very least, the results show that Tory voters are not interested in the Tory Lite (Labour) Party.
Turnout roughly halved in Wellingborough. Even so, Labour attracted roughly the same number of voters as last time, but the Conservatives only about a quarter. Perhaps all of the Labour voters turned out, and 3/4 of the Conservatives stayed at home. On the numbers, perhaps all of the previous Labour voters stayed at home, and all 13,844 voting for Labour this time were among the 24000 odd who had voted Conservative last time. Until someone does some surveys and statistics we just won’t know.
For what it is worth, I expect Conservatives voters were more likely than average to stay at home, Labour voters were more likely than average to turn out, and some Conservatives switched to Labour (or Reform). The Green vote remained at a low level, but some Lib Dems seem to have voted tactically.
The seat has by and large been a Conservative marginal since the 1930, except for a few exceptional years such as 1945 and 1997. So the result bodes well for Labour winning a majority at the next general election. Which may be better than the Conservatives winning again, but what are Keir Starmer’s Labour Party going to do with a majority? More of the same, with a kinder face?
What to make of this from a BBC report.
“Perhaps little wonder that my phone pinged first thing with a text from one of those of Conservatives convinced of the party’s imminent doom unless something radical changes, perhaps getting rid of Rishi Sunak.
“The reality is Labour are currently storming to a huge victory and we have an insurgent party on the right polling above 10%. Cue Nigel Farage’s intervention two months out from a general election and we’re facing an extinction level event. It’s a slow-motion car crash.”
But as things stand I don’t detect a mass, wider outbreak of insurrection. At least not yet.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68316527
Two months out? Was that a slip about a May election?
Who knows?
@Drew Anderson the point I was trying to make was not that rotting timber is a good or bad thing but that it is impossible to consider the effects of various natural process on the climate without taking into account the time scales involved.
There is a tendency for climate change deniers to point out that there are natural processes that add to or subtract from the amount of atmospheric carbon hoping that the conclusion will be drawn that what we are doing does not really matter. However what we have done in a couple of centuries exceeds by several orders of magnitude what any of these natural processes can do in this time.