The Lib Dems have scored one of their historic by-election victories in Richmond Park overnight. Some initial reactions are appropriate.
First, don't say Brexit will not change the landscape of UK politics: it will.
Second, don't say the referendum was the last word on the issue: it clearly was not.
Third, don't say an electoral pact will not work: it clearly will. And remember when coming to that conclusion that UKIP did not stand.
Fourth, don't be racist; the vast majority of people do not like it.
Fifth, don't presume Labour will gain from this. I know this was Richmond Park, but getting 3.7% of the vote still suggests that people felt it had nothing to say.
Sixth, do take a little hope from this. Not masses, because that would be unrealistic. But a little, nonetheless. There is still a debate to be had.
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!
I do take some hope. I’ve woken up too many times recently: the General Election, Brexit and Trump with a feeling of dread in my stomach. I’m very pleased that given the absence of PR people had the sense to vote strategically. I do hope it will prompt Labour to so some soul searching.
Agreed Sean; for once, some good political news. Looks like some Labour supporters and members had the sense to reject party tribalism, and, as you say, vote strategically.
A pity Labour itself can’t seem to do this. I wonder whether, nationwide, the Lib Dems can see this? Under FPTP it’s crazy to have 2 main progressive parties splitting the vote. The idea of a progressive alliance is the only hope from what I can see. Labour to not field a candidate in seats where the LD’s are/were the main threat to the Tories, and ditto for the Lib Dems where it’s achoice between Tory/Ukip and Labour.
One more thought. Where are all the members and activists that were the key to Jeremy Corbyn’s claim to be re-elected leader ?
For the second by-election running (Whitney) Labour scarcely mounts a campaign. What is going on ?
Clicktivism
I assume that ‘clicktivism’ is the activity in which keyboard warriors indulge. I was awake when the Richmond by-election result was announced. Almost immediately, negative comments started about the ‘establishment’ and ‘elites’ having won a temporary victory. There were calls to arms to defend democracy against these ‘EU fascists’ etc etc.
I’ve been aware for some months how prevalent this ‘clicktivism’ is (I’m a bit slow!) I assume the warriors after Richmond were mainly Ukip from the comments made and language used, but it’s also coming from the left. It really is dangerous, because it’s becoming embedded in people’s psyche. It’s the old “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
What do you do about it in this post-truth world? If you give people facts or debunk myths, you just get accused of being one of the ‘elite’ – and ‘experts’ (or even supporters of experts) aren’t in favour. What a sad state of affairs, when telling the truth is debunked for being PC.
I keep telling the truth
History suggests it wins in the end
It’s short term prognosis is bit always so good
No Richard, not just clictivism.
The local Labour candidate, Christian Wolmar, is very much a Labour ‘moderate’ (i.e. he might as well be a Lib Dem anyway). He was a firm supporter of Owen Smith and a repeated strong critic of Corbyn during the leadership campaign. His CLP motion in support of Smith was roundly defeated so it’s not hugely surprising that he couldn’t muster much enthusiasm in the local party.
If anything this result ought to be good for Corbyn as it shows the danger for Labour of selecting ‘moderates’ in the future.
And you think the local population knew that?
You can be sure they didn’t
The general locals might not have known Wolmar supported Owen, but Corbyn supporters who you complained were not out canvassing certainly would have done.
Sorry Richard, I should have made it more clear that I was commenting on your reply to Keith Macdonald’s asking where all the Labour activists were rather than the population of the constituency as a whole.
Adrian, Richmond clp actually endorsed Owen smith for leader in 2016, having endorsed corbyn in 2015. So your argument doesn’t even stand up.
But of course you almost certainly believe that if only labour had selected an ideologically pure corbynite as their candidate rather than Wolmar, then the affluent folk of Richmond would have voted in their droves for the labour candidate.
From spending time in Richmond Park at the weekend, I can confirm that there were some Labour Party members who (discreetly and without telling their local parties) turned out to canvass for the Lib Dems – some of them under the More United banner. There’s definitely mileage in progressive alliances.
Yay!
Please pass on my warmest gratitude to these people.
That worked well in Scotland…
I think there was a discreet agreement to give the Lib Dems a clear run at it, rather than splitting the anti-Conservative vote.
You can’t have it both ways, Richard; supporting electoral pacts/ tactical voting and then knocking the left party whose votes clearly went to the other left-ish candidate. This is exactly what you – and I – would want to happen nationwide. Sadly, in a GE, it won’t. Many liberally inclined voters may want it too, but neither side will agree to a formal pact, so, outside bye-elections, Lib and Lab votes will continue to cancel each other out and let the Tories win again.
I have to say I don’t believe you
I think people are more aware now
Excellent news that Goldsmith lost – I see this as backdated punishment for his disgusting campaign in the London mayoral elections.
Labour’s vote was less than the membership of Richmond Park CLP – clearly tactical voting.
Let’s be honest, labour were always going to do badly in both, but it is amusing that the labour candidate received fewer votes in the Richmond by-election than there are members of the local Labour Party association.
I will express the hope you suggest by suggesting to all viable opposition parties that the only way we can stop the Tories destroying this country and turning it into a theme park for the rich is by joining forces. For me a die has been cast – yes – a small one – but let us hope that as an idea it is that grain of sand that turns into a pearl.
Labour – are you watching?
From word on the Labour grapevine, I think their lack of action in Richmond was a deliberate ploy knowing that they could not win. From what I understood they decided not to split the electorate and campaigned softly for their own candidate. This allowed the Lib candidate a clear run because they were most attractive to that area, thereby making sure Zac Goldsmith would not win. The same tactics were also being used by the Greens to ensure Tory Zac lost.
Members of both parties are not happy with this plan of action and wanted to campaign strongly for their own candidate, but tacticly, it seemed the best way of reducing the Tory stranglehold.
Of course I could be completely wrong.
Rumour has it there are more Labour members in Richmond than voted for their candidate
This is very clear evidence that Labour have nothing to say. This by-election was though on 2 platforms: Heathrow and Brexit. Heathrow was a specific local issue but Labour have taken no prominent stance on this.
On Brexit, which is going to be the on-going national issue at elections over the next few years, Labour have no clear position at all. Labour’s vote has over the last few decades been based on a mix of, to put it crudely, doing well liberal big city dwellers and those not doing well non- big city dwellers. The former voted remain the later Brexit. The Lib Dems have now positioned themselves very clearly to cream off the anti-brexit liberal big city vote whilst UKIP are very clearly aimed at the pro-brexit supporters. Labour is getting eaten from both sides and has absolutely no idea what to do about it.
The only temporary saving grace for Labour may be entrenched tribal voting and the first past the post system. I say that as someone who will face a choice of Labour or Tory at the next election and therefore vote Labour with no real enthusiasm. In a nationwide proportional representation system the party in its current form would be annihilated.
Almost intrinsic to FPTP electoral system is that there is only ‘room’ for 2.5 political parties. Since 1997, Labour’s best result in Richmond Park was 7296 (2015 GE) when the LDs imploded and lost 14k votes… 5k of which went to the Conservatives.
By-election results are always idiosyncratic, but in effect the LDs have simply regained their former pre-coalition status of being the largest party, albeit 4k down on their 2005 result. Zac/Conservatives may have lost 16k votes since the 2015 GE but even so, the Conservatives are only 1642 votes down on their 2005 result.
In the circumstances, Labour’s lack of success is hardly notable or significant.
I am afraid I do not agree. There have been two by-elections so far and the Labour vote has collapsed in both. I cannot see what is good about that.
You do not say whether or not Labour fought an unsuccessful campaign or did not really campaign at all. This is important for future electoral success. When things go wrong we must look closely at the reasons and not just shrug them off.
Having decided to put a candidate up we had an obligation to try to fight the seat and we are supposed to have thousands of activists ready to do so. At the very least this would have given us an opportunity to try out by election tactics and organisation.
I suspect that the Shadow Chancellor’s glowing endorsement of the wonderful opportunities awaiting us post-Brexit wouldn’t have helped had Labour been able to find people willing to tramp the pavements…
What I find amusing is all the remain MP’s in leave constituencies do not feel compelled to trigger by elections to ask if they still represent their constituents? Does not stop the lib trying the same card in Richmond Park reversed.
One of the more worrying things that I have seen as a result of this fracas in Richmond is that everyone seems to be talking about this is an anti-BREXIT vote.
I think that this is naïve and extremely limited.
What we need is an anti-austerity vote – a demand for a caring Government vote. I know that BREXIT will exacerbate our austerity woes but come on – those woes are home grown and created out of callous Tory politicians who should be democratically removed.
I also do not like the tribalist tone of the Lib-Dems who rather than calling for more coalition seem to think that they are the answer to the country’s problems all of a sudden. They should have reflected what really seems to have happened (Labour and Lib-Dems working together) and encouraged Labour to work with them as well as others.
Can these political parties as institutions reflect how their grass roots supporters can work together at the policy level? Or will they continue to ignore what people really want?
What puzzles me is why Corbyn et al and/or LDs don’t go on the offensive, faced with actual Tory policies that defy ‘One Nation’ claims? I haven’t a clue why.
Look at some 20th.C political history, although it covers the period when baby boomers grew up. UK public debt in 1955 was 140% of GDP, well above today’s. Harold Macmillan, then Housing Minister, later Prime Minister, was MP for Stockton, a working-class seat. Despite his posh/paternalistic background he was clearly a very one-nation Tory, with economic policies distinctly leftwards of today’s Labour or L.D.s.
To be specific, the Harolds (Macmillan/Tory and Wilson/Labour) presided over a construction rate of over 300,000 homes per year. That’s the sort of figure we need to solve today’s homeless crisis. Yet since 1979, ‘Thatcher and Sons’ [ref.: Simon Jenkins’ book] haven’t managed to build more than 150,000 to 200,000 homes per year. Few have been council flats or houses, which are what’s most needed.
Finding the land? Easy; look at how Letchworth or Milton Keynes did it or at how councils in the Netherlands and Germany acquire land, give it planning permission and sell it to developers or self-builders. Paying for houses? Hardly rocket science either. Before any rental income comes in, issue 40 or 50 year government bonds. Rich pensioners who lend £500k to the government via NS&I could even bequeath these loan notes to their grandchildren. That approach could fix the payments on say £400 bn of spending until 2066, i.e., there is no problem if interest rates go up.
I’d rather see councils do the borrowing for however many rented houses and flats they need, though, so central government needs to return the power to issue bonds to local government. It’s called local democracy;. Most countries have it, the UK doesn’t seem to understand it.
The cost of each million council houses, done to very high specifications and decent space standards? My guesstimate = about £80bn.
Water companies already issue very long-dated bonds. The interest rate on some of their index-linked debt has been about 1% per year. Hardly crippling; at that rate it would cost about £3bn per year to repay £80 bn over 50 years.
The UK has too many deep-seated problems – three being the homelessness crisis, as discussed; missing vocational skills and a huge current account deficit – to spend years arguing about Brexit. The only way to reconcile 52% and 48% seems to be a Norway-like situation, meeting roughly in the middle; i.e., half in and half out of the EU [as Peter Hitchens said].
I trust you will forgive me re-posting this as a blog, but I felt it worth it
Not sure that it could be termed a resounding win by the LibDems; they were one of only two main parties standing, so it could be viewed more as a poke in the eye for Mr Goldsmith, who stood as an independent. Hilarious to hear Sarah Olney being completely shredded on air by Julian Hartley-Brewer. Unless she toughens up, she will not be in the next parliament.
The sooner we get shot of the dead weight of the EU holding us back, the better.
Respectfully, Julia Hartley-Brewer is not an interviewer: I have been on air with her and to say she is obnoxious is to be kind. No reasonable person would want to engage with her
Ignoring things again.
Sarah Olney waxes lyrical about May.
I expect her to jump ship to the tories prior to the next election.
Sorry, but that’s ridiculous
I’ve read buzzfeed too and that’s a pretty wild claim
I’ve never read buzzfeed….
!
RR
“The sooner we get shot of the dead weight of the EU holding us back, the better”
It would be good to see some credible economic, cultural or educational analysis which supports this. I have seen none.
What worries me most at present is the way Brexit is being handled. Many (including me) have little or no confidence in the Brexit team, and are appalled by the contemptuous way they are treating the 48%.
I’m Irish and am most concerned by Northern Ireland. Here is an extract from Michael Martin’s speech at QUB last week (more details here http://sluggerotoole.com/2016/11/28/uk-policy-is-towards-a-more-unilateral-approach-which-carries-with-it-many-dangers/):
“It is true that most senior government members have said that Northern Ireland is a priority and the recently announced regular meetings are welcome. Set against this though is the exclusion of the Northern Ireland Secretary from permanent membership of the key negotiations committee. In contrast the Tory party chairman is a member — indicating that managing the internal Tory debate is a more permanent concern that managing the impact of Brexit on devolved administrations whose people voted Remain.
What makes this a particular concern is that Northern Ireland is the region which is most exposed to post-Brexit impacts and is the least diversified in terms of its trade.
As the only independent review of Brexit’s impact on Northern Ireland has said, there is currently no positive scenario for the economic impact of Brexit and many which are extremely negative.
The closest to a neutral scenario is one where Northern Ireland has liberal access to the Customs Union.”
Indeed I know some NI people who voted Brexit in the belief it would tear the UK apart. I believe this is a distinct possibility.
Well worth reading
Thanks for the link