It's Saturday, some good bird watching awaits if and when the rain stops, and because I was busy all day yesterday, I did not talk about the Hamilton by-election result.
This was the full result:
There are seven initial things to note.
The first, and most obvious, is that this did not approximate to a democratic outcome. 42% of the electorate voted. The winning candidate was supported by just 31.5% of those who actually voted. They have the support of just 13.9% of people in the constituency. The point has to be made, time and again, that we have a rotten electoral system.
The second and third points are that the LibDems and Greens came nowhere. Either a lot of tactical voting was going on, or they are not UK-wide challengers (and yes, I know the Scottish Greens are a separate party). This was a miserable night for both.
Fourth, the Tories look like they will be joining them in the political wilderness, very soon, if they have not already reached that destination. With less than 6% of the vote, they have ceased to be relevant. Reform might be in total disarray, and a bunch of outright neo-fascists, but Badenoch and her motley crew have no answer to them. They were effectively wiped out here. It is very hard to imagine them becoming electorally relevant again, which is quite extraordinary when they held power from 2010 to 2024.
Fifth, Reform took votes from the Tories because, well, why not? With the Tories beyond hope, if you want to vote neo-fascist, then Reform were the obvious choice. Hamilton is a constituency equivalent to the English red wall. It is suffering a fair degree of industrial blight. It has quite a high proportion of working-class votes, many of them inclined to quite strong forms of Unionism. This is a political grouping well suited to vote for Reform, even if Farage is seemingly incapable of getting on with anyone, and it is apparent that some of that party's recently elected councils are already in disarray. No one, after all, votes for Reform because they want something. The only reason to vote for Reform is to be opposed to the prevailing political agenda, and at present it seems that this is sufficient for them to pick up votes.
To contextualise this, I am old enough to remember when the SDP, or Social Democratic Party, picked up votes in the same way in 1981 and 1982. In the 1983 general election, they faded into oblivion, eventually merging with the Liberals. These things happen in politics when people are fed up with the status quo.
Now, I admit that in 1983 Thatcher did, almost to her own surprise, succeed in presenting a policy agenda that appealed to the electorate despite, rather than because of, her economic policy to that point in time, with the Falklands war playing a large part in her appeal. There is, however, little that Farage can do that will be equivalent because none of his local politicians are likely to be that competent, and nor is his motley Parliamentary crew. So, whilst Reform picked up votes in Hamilton from the Tories, in particular, and Labour, a little bit, and from the SNP as the party in power in Scotland (and for those not familiar with Scottish politics, it is Holyrood and not Westminster that dominates debate) then, right now, Farage has everything going for him. But, with continuing mayhem in the USA, and the failure of his own councils likely to become clear over the next year or so, I think you should enjoy his moment. I might be wrong, but I think we are seeing peak Reform.
This then brings me to points six and seven, which are, as were points two and three, linked to each other. I admit that I did not expect Labour to win this election. Nor did anyone else. This was meant to be an SNP safe seat. It wasn't. Labour won it.
Why? In large part because the SNP ran a poor campaign with a candidate with a track record of losing, who the leadership keep endorsing, and with a party leadership that does not inspire much confidence. Rumour has it that the on-the-ground campaign paid little attention to the messages from doorsteps. I have said it before, and I will say it again, no doubt, that the people of Scotland want independence, but that does not mean that they necessarily support the SNP. To acquaint the two is mistaken, most especially when the SNP leadership continues to ignore what its members have to say. The message to the SNP from this by-election is that they need to get their act together, and they have not.
Labour has a little more to get excited about. First, this seat is not typical of Scotland second, they could not replicate this campaign at a general election because they managed to put forward a candidate who never did media interviews and who would not take part in any hustings precisely because he had too many questions to answer about his career in neighbouring constituencies which he did not wish to face. That might work in a by-election, but such denial of accountability cannot translate into something broader, and I do not think that Labour should take comfort from that.
What is more, there is no way in which Labour can extrapolate this result to suggest that they will win the 2026 Holyrood elections. They might succeed in forcing the SNP into being a quite difficult minority government, but that is the best that this outcome might suggest for them. And, by then, who knows where Reform will be?
Overall, this was a night when no one could take much comfort, and the obvious failings of both our electoral system and the politicians who thrive within it were apparent. Little can be extrapolated from the result. Labour can, temporarily, feel pleased with themselves, but they would be profoundly unwise to think that this suggests that they are on the cusp of some great renaissance in Scotland, because I very much doubt that they are. The SNP really does need to listen to the people who want to succeed, who it continually ignores. And Farage remains a one-man wrecking ball.
It is democracy that lost in Hamilton.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
The SNP needs to support a new conversation by voters in Scotland – about their aspirations for Scotland and how these can be realised – which is the Citizens’ Convention plan from Believe in Scotland.
Exactly right exile
V good summary.
Three small comments:
Hamilton isn’t “red wall” in the same way Thanet or Lincoln are — Hamilton has a more mixed economy not associated with one legacy industry. There are areas of Scotland which are more “left behind” than Hamilton. So work to do!
All of the UK has suffered in austerity. What is v rarely discussed in MSM is the mitigation applied by Scottish Government policies to reduce the worst of it. Many areas which could have been “left behind” – communities like Motherwell (Hamilton’s neighbour) – are demonstrably improving. I don’t think that applies to, eg, Mansfield.
And lastly, what Labour do fiendishly well in Scotland is blame the SNP for the impact of national policy or fiscal straightjacket – even when it’s their national policy. Labour’s duplicity seems boundless. I had thought there’d be fewer people prepared to vote Labour after this Starmer Comedy ….
(I lived in Motherwell till P5, did labouring at Bellshill steel plant briefly one Summer, and am up the road just now).
Thanks
Exactly right on what Labour (in name only “do fiendishly well in Scotland.
Might one of the submerged purposes/consequences of Neo-liberalism be to detach an introverted political caste from the electorate and their contexts for living/surviving?.
Are they introverted?
Are they interesting enough to be introvert?
Is it just a coincidence that the local MP for Hamilton is Mrs McSweeney?
No.
From what I’ve read in the papers, the Labour candidate was very popular locally and ran a good doorstep campaign.
The rise of Reform continues to be a worry. Its biggest problem is Farage himself- as you’ve stated. He’s thin skinned and doesn’t like criticism. People eventually fall out with him. There have to doubts whether he will make it to the 2029 election, in which case Reform will fall away with right wing voters going back to the Conservatives, presuming they’ve got their act together by then.
I’m not sure what you do about the turnout. It’s not unusual. Compulsory voting, like in some countries such as Australia, might be one answer but in my view people should have the right in a democracy not to vote if they so wish.
Nit what I hear about the Labour candidate. They kept him totally out of view as he is personally disliked.
As an S.N.P member of many years I can tell you there is considerable unrest, at least in my branch, at the seeming complacency of our leadership. Since 2015 we seem to be at best standing still, and at the worst, going backwards. If decisive action isn’t taken soon, and by that I mean stating firmly that we have had enough of this Union, and we will make the 2026 Scottish General Election result, which hopefully will go in our favour, a mandate for Independence. After all, what have we got to lose. Time for some courage, but do our leaders have the bottle? I for one am not so sure. I have met John Swinney, and he seems a very nice person, undoubtably dedicated to our cause, deserving of his title, “Honest John”, but we had him as leader twenty years ago, and to put it bluntly, it wasn’t a great success. While Government should be all about policies to benefit the people, and I believe the S.N.P have did remarkably well with one hand tied behind their back by a U.K Government, nowadays, it seems to be more about who heads a political party, than anything else. So we don’t want to do a Biden and wait until it’s too late. We must act now if we believe we need someone more dynamic.
Thanks
A C Bruce wrote “stating firmly that we have had enough of this Union, and we will make the 2026 Scottish General Election result, which hopefully will go in our favour, a mandate for Independence.”
It’s a risky strategy, the SNP could do badly in 2026 for reasons that have nothing to do with independence, but unionists will use it to say the electorate have clearly rejected independence – essentially the problem of being a long-standing but “tired” government.
As I’m sure you’re aware there have been two main views in the SNP since the last referendum, one is to use it as a stepping board and go for another as quick as possible, though that’s kind of late now, reckoning that sufficient support can be gained during the campaign to push it over the line and a view that another referendum shouldn’t be attempted unless there’s a convincing margin in favour at the start because losing another one would put the SNP’s raison d’être totally off the table and beyond discussion for at least another decade.
The problem with the latter view is that initial support is unlikely to appear out of thin air, it needs to be cultivated, and the SNP government have been too busy dealing with the kind of problems that tend to befall long term governments to do much cultivating, or one could say essentially they’ve been on the back foot defending rather than going forward. Of course, it’s easy to say that, much harder to do anything about it when things that need defending keep being thrown at them.
There is a strong feeling that the SNP leadership are too confortable with the status quo
I’m an SNP member in Edinburgh and totally agree with your analysis.
I’m not sure my local branch feels the same unrest.
I believe the Labour candidate is prominent in the Orange Order and that Larkhall is strongly Orange. So long as the boys got the vote out then TV appearances, etc were not required. Especially when overall turnout was low.
You might have hit a nail on its head, Tim.
Most people ignore this form of pernicious Unionism.
Tim’s absolutely right.
The SNP have said they are going to “look very closely at the result” and “learn lessons” from the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. Thousands of SNP-supporting voters stayed home as many thousands did at last year’s UK general election.
We, in Scotland, keep hearing about these lessons they “will learn” after every loss; it’s an SNP mantra they trot out. Nothing changes.They don’t listen to their members, they don’t listen on the doorsteps and they have no plan to achieve independence.
They do, however, listen all too well and too often, to the latest of a succession of English PMs saying, as they do time after time, that there will be no referendum on Scottish independence.
They’ve lost the trust of many now.
Scotland will be independent once again – support for it is increasing – but I’m no longer of the mind that it will be the SNP at the helm when it happens.
When independence happens the SNP is over, I hope. It will have no role left, if it has one now.
“I have said it before, and I will say it again, no doubt, that the people of Scotland want independence, but that does not mean that they necessarily support the SNP. ”
Excellent summation.
Same thing may be said of MAGA: “people of the USA want highly controlled immigration, but that does not mean that they necessarily support the MAGA.”
🙂
BayTampaBay : “Same thing may be said of MAGA: “people of the USA want highly controlled immigration, but that does not mean that they necessarily support the MAGA.”
Actually I don’t think it would be particularly accurate in that case, yes there will doubtless be some who support Trump simply because of immigration but generally it can’t be divided up, MAGA supporters support MAGA as a whole including controlled immigration. MAGA is extreme strict father politics and mainly attracts people who are inclined to strict father politics.
@Robert B
In Florida, I know many people who hate Trump, hate MAGA, hate the MAGAts and really dislike and disdain the old Republican party but support tighter immigration controls for a mountain of reasons that very quite a bit from person-to-person.
I suspected that was the case.
@BayTampaBay
Florida may be a particular example of “some” people supporting Trump purely because of one policy, immigration but Trump support generally has little to do with individual policies, it’s mainly down to people supporting the values system he purports.
Understanding Trump, 2016 : https://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2016/lakoff_trump.html
This is true of conservatives generally but as with many things Trump does it bigger. It’s a large part of why conservatives tend to win in modern times.
“conservatives speak from an authentic moral position, and appeal to voters’ values. Liberals try to argue against them using evidence; they are embarrassed by emotionality. They think that if you can just demonstrate to voters how their self-interest is served by a socially egalitarian position, that will work, and everyone will vote for them and the debate will be over. ” George lakoff, The Guardian 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/01/george-lakoff-interview
When that doesn’t work progressives usually start following the polls/focus groups thinking that will work, Starmer is an obvious example, it doesn’t, following polls but having no vision to sell ultimately fails even when the alternative is a highly flawed vision like Reforms.
Another potential factor in Florida is people lie, the vast majority of people vote based on gut instinct, gut instinct tends to come from who they identify with and who presents a world view/vision they identify with. After they vote they make up reasons for why they voted that way, depending on the person the reasons may be névé and simplistic or quite sophisticated but they are just excuses to justify their gut instinct.
Agree with all points made by RM and posts above
There is a problem in SNP if its longstanding most loyal supporters of independence feel ignored , and that it’s pointless trying to get through to a remote centralised power base. The effect is they stay at home don’t vote.
For example it would help if branches were allowed to connect and work together, instead of working in silos and duplicating.
It feels managed.
This suggestion has been offered within.
“It’s Saturday, some good bird watching awaits if and when the rain stops”
By chance, are you taking tea with Mr. & Mrs. Water Buffalo?
Give them my regards!
I am not….
Elsewhere today
And still damp….
Without Westminster’s “permission” for another referendum, the path to independence feels completely blocked. And that’s not how democracy is supposed to work.
Personally, I believe it’s time the SNP stopped playing a rigged game. The UK Supreme Court has effectively closed the legal route within the UK framework, and ever since that ruling, the SNP has looked lost — unable or unwilling to act decisively.
Why aren’t we taking this to the international stage? The right to self-determination is recognised in international law — Scotland has a clear democratic mandate, a distinct legal system, and a strong case to be made. Even if international courts can’t force action, taking the issue beyond Westminster would expose the undemocratic nature of the current impasse. It could shift public opinion and generate pressure from outside the UK.
It’s not about getting a quick fix, it’s about showing leadership — showing that Scotland won’t be held hostage by a system designed to deny its democratic voice.
The SNP needs to stop waiting for permission, and start taking the argument to the worl
I agree with you
Salvo/Liberation are taking steps to bring the situation to the attention of the UN, having got the support of Justice Pour Tous Internationale. It will take time, but, more and more, it looks as though such routes are the only ones available.
“névé “should have been “naive”