Beyond the July By-Elections

Rishi Sunak was spared the ignominy of losing three parliamentary by-elections on one day, but he still has the humiliation of putting a brave face of two utterly devastating defeats. Somerton and Frome and Selby and Ainsty are the sorts of places you should be able to weigh the Tory vote and where opposition parties are but a rumour. But in the West Country the Liberal Democrats set aside received wisdom and brushed away a 19,000 majority and were returned with a cushion of 11,000. Labour have had less success in formerly safe Tory seats, but last night the 20,000 margin for the Conservatives was exchanged for a 4,000 strong majority for Keir Mather, now this parliament's youngest MP.

Considering the state of the Tories, Sunak was bound to grasp at the one glimmer of salvation during a night of utter devastation. He said the next general election was not a "done deal" and that his party confounded expectations by retaining Uxbridge and South Ruislip. As all week the press have been talking about uncertainty over the outcome, that's not strictly speaking true. Choosing to ignore the wounding blows elsewhere, Sunak said this was a clear instruction to get on with his five pledges and deliver on the people's priorities. Yadda yadda. The new nobody now occupying Boris Johnson's old seat, Steve Tuckwell, was more accurate in his assessment. I.e. It was the extension of the Ultra Low Emission Zone to all of Greater London that turned out the Tory support. Leaving aside the regressive characteristics of ULEZ, extrapolating from this quite localised issue there will be a Tory school of thought that there are votes to be gained from pro-car (pro-fossil fuels) and anti-green posturing. Indeed, we know there is one.

It might seem counterintuitive, but the narrow by-election defeat for Labour suits Keir Starmer more than any kind of win. Because it allows him, like Sunak, to stick with the current strategy. Starmer has justified his turn to fiscal hawkishness in terms of what is "necessary" for Labour to enter Number 10. The "tough choices" cliche is about warding off Tory press attacks, and is heavily premised on appealing to (and therefore reinforcing) the negative class consciousness of a section of the electorate. Which includes a not inconsiderable amount of Labour's support. Uxbridge will be deployed as the clincher in this argument, that Labour cannot take anything for granted and so we have to continue being indifferent to hungry children and not make any pledges that could be construed as hopeful, let alone transformative. Had Labour waltzed to a handsome win, Starmer's choice to offer little would have looked more that than the necessary evil he wants to portray it as.

However, all three by-elections demonstrated something I've long been warning about. Forget the revolutionary deflation arguments getting bandied about that reads undue significance into the customarily low turn outs for parliamentary by-elections, and the evaporation of votes in conditions where tactical voting has obviously taken place (Labour's numbers in Somerton, the Lib Dems in Uxbridge and Selby). The interesting factor here is the presence of the Greens. If memory serves, the 10.2% in Somerton is the most the Greens have ever received in a by-election. And saving its deposit in Selby will bring the Greens some cheer, even if it didn't trouble the Labour victory. But, arguably, the 2.9% (893 votes) they got in Uxbridge did. Also, the Green vote in all three by-elections refused to be squeezed. As I pointed out in The Problems of Starmerism paper, pushing policies inimical to the interests of Labour's voter coalition is not without cost. Then (it was written in December 2020) it argued that this would either see Labour's Corbyn-era vote stay at home or give other parties a punt. And this matters because the core vote are not just piled up in big city supermajorities for Labour but are (unevenly) distributed across the country, and could make the difference in some seats. In Uxbridge's case there is a plausible argument to be made that Starmer's child benefit position (and the cowardly backsliding on ULEZ by Labour's candidate) saw enough voters peel away to the Greens to deny him victory. In the grand scheme that doesn't matter for now as the loss suits the prevailing Labour strategy, but carrying on like this when in office will cost the party dear.

Overall it's obvious Labour are on track to win the next election and Sunak's name will forever be paired with a famous defeat. But what is likely to happen in politics beyond that election can already be gleaned.

Image Credit