Independent Candidates or Left Alternatives?

Week before last there was an interesting article in Socialist Worker. The paper's editor, Tomáš Tengely-Evans, has indicated that the SWP are about to break from their routine movementism and begin standing in elections. The occasion is one of their comrades standing as an independent for Chesterfield council on 1st May. Something of an about turn since it exited the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition just over eight years ago and gave up elections for "the streets". Why the sudden switch?

There is the appalling record of Keir Starmer's Labour government in office. For every crumb of improvement conceded by Number 10, they've dished out a bellyful of crap. They've attacked the most vulnerable members of our class, and are sensibly salting the earth for themselves in time for the local elections, never mind the general election four years hence. They're upsetting their media outriders too. Even those who loyally shilled for the Labour right between 2015 and 2019 are finding their frequent Faragist forays hard to stomach.

The left's disgust with Starmerism long precedes the shameful attempt to sack Diane Abbott's candidacy prior to the election. But, for once, this does not come from a place of electoral impotence. The re-election of Jeremy Corbyn in the teeth of the Labour machine, and the so-called Gaza independents - plus, you might say, the Greens - shows that constituency-level left insurgencies are possible. It is disappointing that nothing has come from this, nor the suspension of left wing Labour MPs where the development of a new working class party is concerned. And the vacuum has meant the Greens have leaned into their left wing credentials without much pushback from anybody. Meanwhile, reports continue circulating of behind-the-scenes efforts to cobble something together, without (it seems) much enthusiasm from Corbyn nor the other independents. Yet the party gap remains.

Which is something the SWP has noticed with their latest front, We Demand Change. An effort to link up (capitalise on) the new struggles emerging in reply to the cruelties and stupidities of Starmerism, its broad-based orientation makes it well-placed to pivot from anti-cuts to anti-corruption to anti-racist to anti-Trump campaigning in the blink of an eye. But at the inaugural rally in London on 29th March, the question of building a left electoral alternative kept cropping up, despite the customary SWP emphasis on building demonstrations and organising rallies. Being confronted with this appetite for something more, Tengely-Evans writes "There are two dangers - one is to stand on the sidelines of this debate about elections, the other is to go into it without fighting for revolutionary politics." But, as ever, the silences are significant too. What's missing is any justification for "SWP members ... standing as independent socialists". Sure, having seen the Jane Hindle - the Chesterfield candidate - literature, there is no doubt where she stands on Labour, war, capitalism, and the centrality of the working class. But why stand as independents instead of straightforward SWP candidates?

The reason? None is given. Could it be that, sadly, independent candidates for several reasons are more likely to do better than socialist candidates that stand under a socialist banner? The obvious answer is yes, if the TUSC experience is anything to go by. But it has the happy side effect of any campaigning not generating an organisational dynamic for a wider body the SWP might otherwise sit in and lose activists to. Thinking about the relationships the SWP wants to cultivate, it does not put the Corbyn/Collective crew on the spot, nor pressurise the three remaining Labour MPs without the whip, nor the Gaza Independents, nor the conservatives in its own ranks wedded to the SWP's customary syndicalism. A smattering of "independent" councillors also gives them a bit of heft if a new party/umbrella alliance does eventually emerge too.

The problem with this approach is the anti-party logic independent candidatures play to. The SWP say they want to enter electoral politics to fight for their revolutionary views. But central to any understanding of Leninism is the irreducible nature of party organisation, which subordinates the individual to the collective will. How are they going to make the principled case in the coming years for a common and united leftist approach to elections if, between now and 2028/9, the SWP and anyone vaguely associated with We Demand Change are going to build election campaigns around individuals as individuals? This is not the stuff a cohesive, solidaristic politics is made of. And how then are those voters going to be carried over if, the next time, they do stand as socialists on a socialist outfit's ticket? It appears to me the Socialist Worker article forgot their ABCs even as the editor wrote them.

If the left, regardless of which part we're talking about, want to build an organisation to tackle elections as the left, they need to take a leaf from bourgeois politics and Labourism. Unite around a party identity, promote it over and above petty factional projects while rooting it in communities and workplaces, and when elections happen stand consistently. This is not a silver bullet, but it is the minimum level of seriousness required if Labour is to be taken on and taken out at the ballot box. The SWP's offering, despite their turn to elections, puts them on the path to ensuring such an outcome will come about very, very slowly.

Image Credit

New Left Media April 2025

A little bit out of sync with the routine, but who cares? Here are some more new left media projects that were picked up by the radar since last time.

1. BattleLines with Owen Jones (Blog) (Bluesky)

2. Heatwave (Magazine) (Bluesky)

3. Interregnum (Blog) (Bluesky)

4. We Demand Change (Campaign website)

If you know of any new(ish) blogs, podcasts, channels, Facebook pages, resources, spin offs from existing projects, campaign websites or whatever that haven't featured before then drop me a line via the comments, email, Bluesky, Facebook, or Twitter. Please note I'm looking for new media that has started within the last 12 months, give or take. The round up appears hereabouts when there are enough new entrants to justify a post!

Communing with Dead Voters

If you wait by the river long enough, goes the proverb, the bodies of your enemies will float by. Likewise for the left in this country. Sitting and watching politics journalism means points made years ago will find themselves laundered for mainstream consumption. And with the noticing underway - the realisation that Keir Starmer and co aren't much cop - the sub-genre of repackaged observations and arguments is picking up.

There were two such examples from the last couple of days. In her mail out to subscribers, The I's Katy Balls reported on growing disquiet among Labour MPs about the party's strategy. One (anonymous, of course) insider said "If we’re doing Reform-lite policies, we shouldn’t be losing to Reform.” Balls observes that the government might, therefore, need to shore up its left flank with policies that, shock, left wing voters might like.

And then in The Economist we have Duncan Robinson laying into the delusions that have captured the Labour and Conservative Party leaderships. Starmerism and the Tories are beholden to a zombie politics in which their favourite voter is ... dead. This constituency, which haunts the imaginations of Morgan McSweeney, commits the government to the nonsenses of Brexit and the rejection of anything amounting to a sensible accommodation with the EU. He writes, "If, like everyone else in British politics, one is looking for right-leaning, Leave-voting non-graduates with particularly authoritarian views to attend a focus group, then the best place to find them is the morgue."

Long-time readers of this blog might be experiencing dejavu. Labour's right wing turn is unsustainable? You don't say. Right wing authoritarian politics is in long-term decline, and with it the parties dependent on these constituencies? Where have we heard that before? The basic, almost banal position of this corner of the internet is in the first instance the Conservatives, and Reform are subject to the aforementioned declinist pressures. Their base in wider society is ageing and dying, and not getting replaced like-for-like. For the moment, their support turns out disproportionately but any advantage the right holds here is time limited. It's therefore foolish in the extreme for a party like Labour, which still holds leads among working age people despite the collapse of the polling position, to hitch their wagon to a bunch of gee-gees ready for the knackers yard.

So we have an identification of a problem facing bourgeois politics, but what's missing from Balls's and Robinson's account is the explanation. It might seem puzzling that Kemi Badenoch's hapless leadership is abandoning efforts at winning back thw swathe of Tory seats lost to the Liberal Democrats for the sake of a handful of constituencies they conceded to Reform. However, the Tories - not unreasonably - believe Nigel Farage is the existential threat. To stand any chance of winning again, the Conservatives have to monopolise hardcore right wing voters. At least where the thinking of leading Tories are concerned. Only when the base is secure and the interlopers seen off can they think about taking back ground from the Lib Dems. The people Badenoch and friends have to attract might be dead, but their shades continue to animate the right wing media, which is still viewed as the voice of Tory England. Though these institutions are shedding readers to the Grim Reaper daily, their editorials are so much ouija spelling out what the Tories have to do.

And Labour? Being "responsible", the "grown up" thing is to put as much political distance between their management of British capitalism, and the aspirations of the party's base. Fiscal rules, attacks on the disabled, pretending to be Brexit true-believers, the expired, ex-voters of 2019 vintage are convenient ghosts summoned from the spirit realm to haunt the excuses for inaction and cruelty. But the Labour leadership are deeply cynical mediums and lack the credulity of a Derek Acorah. Their conjuring is a fraud to alibi a politics of managing expectations. The promise of doing very little and continuing attacks on the most vulnerable and the scapegoats favoured by the Tories dampens demands on them to do progressive things, while also reassuring the ruling class that Starmerism means safety where the stability of class relations are concerned. This means the last thing the government want is to reject the dead in favour of the living, because securing Labour's future as an election winning machine that can bury the Tories and see off Reform will only happen if they strive to be capital's master, not its handmaiden. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how unlikely that is.

Hard Talk from the Soft Left

In February, Anneliese Dodds jacked in her international development brief following Keir Starmer's decision to raid overseas aid for weapons. It was significant in that Dodds's resignation represented the first overt rebellion by a soft left figure against the government's direction of travel. Therefore, when she spoke in the Commons on Thursday in criticism of the leadership's strategy Dodds wasn't just speaking for herself - she was giving voice to the rumblings of disquiet across the parliamentary party.

Being the soft left, and therefore the most loyal of oppositions, Dodds pointedly eschews finger pointing and goes for a very politic, almost Delphic critique. Mirroring her resignation statement, she said the world is "in flux" and government lacks "muscle memory". Hold on, I'm stopping this right here with a necessary digression. No "muscle memory"? Starmer wasn't in government until this year but, like the rest of us, he lived through Covid and the unprecedented interventions that crisis forced on the Tories. Indeed, he had a ringside seat and headed up an obsequious, spine-bending "opposition" to Boris Johnson's disastrous management. Before that, Starmer navigated the rough seas of Brexit to his political profit, came through Labour's internal wars against Jeremy Corbyn unscathed, and prior to entering the Commons led the Crown Prosecution Service through a period of Tory-imposed resource rationing. Readers here are unlikely to endorse how Starmer approached these challenges, but it's simply untrue to say he lacks experience dealing with "unprecedented crisis". Rather, it's been the default context since Starmer's career catapulted him into the upper echelons. If Starmer is carrying on with a business-as-usual mindset, it's not that he's an untested naif - he's choosing to. But as the soft left's role is to prick the conscience of the right rather than offer a distinct alternative, it's too much to expect Dodds to pick him up on that.

Dodds then raised her concerns about democratic backsliding and how liberal norms are being eroded, unwilling - of course - to acknowledge how these have been wrecked in the Labour Party which, after all, is as much part of our constitutional set up as acts of parliament and the House of Lords. This was why, for Dodds, we need to buddy up with other liberal democracies with UK-EU defence partnerships. But perhaps the most pointed of criticisms, which will undoubtedly be taken as a slight by Rachel Reeves despite the sugar-coated delivery, was the need to dump the "shibboleths". These are the "fiscal rules" and taxation, because "the very best-off have seen so little impact on their well-being from economic headwinds." Ouch.

From the point of view of mainstream politics, Dodds is right on the politics and the economics. To get around the costs of Donald Trump, the UK needs to turbocharge its domestic market. Reeves might not have any ideas of her own, but she did partially recognise this in her January infrastructure announcement. The problem is that stimulus policies are half-cocked if government is also sucking demand out of the economy, which it is with disability cuts and the increase on employers' National Insurance contributions. Our model for Dodds should be Germany and the huge spending splurge it announced to turn around its chugging economy. Seems quite sensible.

And ... it appears Starmer himself might be coming round to this view. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, his paper of choice for strategic announcements, he talks about the trading relationship with the United States and the possibility of a trade deal, and says "We stand ready to use industrial policy to help shelter British business from the storm. Some people may feel uncomfortable about this – the idea the state should intervene directly to shape the market has often been derided. But we simply cannot cling on to old sentiments when the world is turning this fast." People can read into that what they like, and Labour supporters hungry for the thinnest of gruels undoubtedly will. He adds "...these new times demand a new mentality. We have gone further and faster on national security, now we must do the same on economic security through strengthened alliances and reducing barriers to trade." A new speech on the British economy has been slotted into the grid, bringing forward a raft of announcements scheduled for the summer.

A vindication of Dodds and the soft left? More a case of fortuitous timing and the soft left being more in tune with economic realities, but whatever comes out is not going to be straightforward. "Protections" in Starmer's iteration of Labourism have to walk the tightrope of delivering the goods without empowering the workers and frightening capital-at-large. Whatever agenda comes means that the left have also got to adapt its politics to match - otherwise, why bother listening to us?

Y-Traxx - Mystery Land

Hasn't the weather been gorgeous? Sitting in the office and peering out onto the sunkissed cityscape that is Derbados, it has brought back memories of summers of weather-perfect dance tracks. And here is one of those from a long, long time ago that somehow captures blue skies, sand, and kindly heat.

The Class Politics of Trump's Tariffs

Wednesday's announcement of tariffs by Donald Trump was styled by the President as "liberation day". A set of measures that, if the markets are anything to go by, liberated trillions of dollars of value from the largest and most important US companies. As measures go, tariffs - like everything else the Trump presidency has done - can only compound his country's relative decline by encouraging trading flows that eschew the United States for more reliable and stable markets. Like those offered by the European Union and China, for instance. These tariffs constitute the most extraordinary act of self-harm. This is pound-for-pound worse than what Brexit was for the UK, and could be as disruptive to the American domestic economy as the traumas East European states went through following the collapse of Comecon and the restoration of capitalism. Why set out on a course that can only impoverish the country? What is Trump trying to achieve?

Two very quick points looking at this from the perspective of bourgeois interests.

The first is the Liz Truss argument. I.e. What Trump has done is to short the market. The announcement leads to market turmoil and devaluation, and down in the dip the most short-termist sections of finance and commercial capital hoover up cheap assets which they can sell when stocks inevitably recover. Which depends on Trump rowing back on some tariffs, which seems likely given his erratic behaviour. Would some sections of capital be happy to see US capital as a whole take a hit for their profits? Absolutely. We saw some of their British counterparts do this two-and-a-half years ago during Truss's brief stint in Downing Street, so why not again? There are sections of American capital who are totally on board with libertarianism as a strategy for class politics. I.e. Blow up anything that amounts to a social or legal obligation on capital accumulation, even if it's against the interests of capital-in-general. Giving credence to this reading is the "idiotic" way the tariffs have been calculated, and to whom they've been applied - including uninhabited rocks in the middle of the ocean. The slap dash approach indicates a desire in engineering an outcome, not a serious policy orientation.

But supposing it is a turn away from global trade, what does the US stand to gain? It's worth remembering that capital is not unified, and there are competing perspectives within it regarding assumptions about the ways of the world, what policies are appropriate to it, and what strategies are best for advancing the interests of sections of business, and/or capital as a whole. For instance, Trump's slimy relationship to Vladimir Putin is entirely rational viewed in the context of this framework. I would suggest the tariffs are bound up with securing the oligarchical interest on the home front. While trade unionism is hardly in rude health across the sea, the street rebellions around Black Lives Matter and Palestinian Solidarity are read by hyper-class conscious oligarchs as trouble at t'mill; that something is shifting. The proxy for this is the elite's war on woke. They (rightly) discern that the take up of diversity and inclusion policies by big capital is a form of appeasement, of capital responding to the expectations and aspirations of labour rather than laying down the law. After all, how awful it is for business owners that workers resent their aptitudes and identities being used against them. It is a far sighted recognition that the becomings of immaterial labour presents a long-term threat to the stability of class relations. The development of so-called AI is one technique whose application is to head this off, but equally the reconstruction of the federal state as a decrepit do-nothing institution with no purpose beyond enforcing the power of the executive branch can also serve as capital's reply to this existential challenge, albeit one that is crude in its methods and brutal in its outcomes. Trump's new isolationism is a disengagement from US responsibilities and dependencies and is explicitly asserted in sovereigntist terms - Make America Great Again. But what the real consequence will be is not the much-promised economic renaissance, but the reconsolidation of the bourgeois power some class fractions feel is slipping away.

Whingeing and Hand-Wringing

Over the last few years, Keir Starmer hasn't just annoyed people on the left and in the labour movement, he had upset his core support as well. The base in the state bureaucracy, in the professions, and crucially in the media has been divided about his leadership since Starmer and Rachel Reeves explicitly said nothing will change. Because we live in an era where we can all take comfort in illusions of our own devising, a lot of this group overlooked - or accidentally-on-purpose did not notice - the pledges of allegiance to fiscal hawkism and bowing to far right culture warriors as disagreeable but necessary compromises on the road to Number 10. But this cannot be ignored any longer.

The politics of noticing has another spox today, the Graun's Rafael Behr. He writes about how Starmer is lining one policy atrocity up after another, giving little time for Labour MPs to catch their breath and salve their souls. It's an "unpalatable choice" buffet, and all wings of the parliamentary party are affected, from soft left to Blairites with instincts for electoral self-preservation. And what's driving all this? Nothing, it seems. There is no strategic purpose to this Labour government, and without that there is a "dwindling purchase on the growing cohort of voters who see Labour and Tories as interchangeable and equally contemptible." Steady on "Raf" for your own sake. We know what happened last time you got very upset with a Labour leader.

It's not just what Starmer is saying and doing that's upsetting. The positive vibes are gone as well. The project of state modernisation is still part of his emotional economy, but the feels are messed up by the telling. Labour's plan for the civil service, for instance, is the sacking of tens of thousands of workers and their replacement by unreliable technologies. The crisis in the universities and the piles of student debt, the very people who would otherwise be the next generation of support for Starmer and his heirs - they get increased fees and institutions Labour is seemingly content to bury. And any idea this is a government motivated by compassion is just not credible. Turning the page on the cruelty of the Tory years means overseeing brutal cuts of their own.

And so it's coming to pass, signs that the Starmerist base are peeling off are not difficult to discern. But while Behr's despair is symptomatic of how a layer of relatively privileged people are feeling, he does have one reason to be cheerful. He played the expected role as a mid-ranking media commentator at Britain's leading liberal daily in opposition to the left wing alternative to "sensible" centrism and Boris Johnson's buffoonery, and did his bit driving the foul scourge of socialism out of permitted politics. It brought them political peace of sorts, but left the landscape a desert. But in purging radicalism and new ideas, the arid vista is left for prospectors like Behr to describe and bemoan. In other words, while he is a voice of a strata Behr has unwittingly returned to the historic mean of people like him who work in the media: as paid-for whingers hand wringing at a state of affairs that keeps them in a job.

Image Credit

Five Most Popular Posts in March

Let's get the monthly round-up done. What was hot on the blog in March?

1. Cruelty is the Point
2. Cuddling the Russian Bear
3. Why Labour Attacks the Disabled
4. Labour and the Social Workhouse
5. Laura Kuenssberg's Gotcha Journalism

Five strapping examples of digital agitprop. Occupying the first, third, and fourth places are pieces looking at Labour's performative cruelty, and like any accomplished actor they give every impression of enjoying the role they've cast for themselves. A commitment to a series of grotesqueries that's already biting them in the polls and will make re-election in four years that much harder. In at two is Trump's love-in with Russia. The irrational attraction of one authoritarian to another, or is there something deeper going on? To ask the question is to answer it, so you should read this post if you haven't already. And then in last is Sunday's missive on Kuenssberg's latest contribution to journalistic craft. Has this country ever been beset by a worse collection of political and media elites?

I have a couple of afters following these choice cuts. First is Labour's enthusiasm for artificial intelligence. TL;DR - it's more than ministers looking forward to post-politics career opportunities, it goes to the deskilling impulse at the heart of class exploitation. And in second, eschewing the science fiction we go back to hard science fact with revisiting class politics and Covid.

There are a few things waiting in the in-tray for the month ahead. I want to follow up the social workhouse post. Undoubtedly Trump will commit more crimes and upset allies again. Starmer will continue to wallow in the gutter, and unless I get hit by a bus I'll be around to offer considered reflections on all these things and more. As ever, if you haven't already don't forget to follow the (very) occasional newsletter, and if you like what I do (and you're not skint), you can help support the blog. Following me on Bluesky, Facebook, and for what it's worth Twitter, are cost-free ways of showing your backing for this corner of the internet.

Image Credit

How Not to Frame the Le Pen Politics Ban

When is a crime not a crime? When a far right political leader is caught with their hand in the till. It then becomes a stitch-up and an attack on democracy, at least according to the reactionary international who've lined up to defend Marine Le Pen in the wake of her sentence for defrauding the European Union. Viktor Orban, himself no stranger to corruption allegations put out a pitiful "Je Suis Marine". Nigel Farage claims Le Pen was "cancelled". A funny way of saying 'misappropriated funds' but then again he got done himself while still an MEP. Vladimir Putin had the cheek to call the verdict a "violation of democratic norms". Something, in fairness, he has a great deal of experience with. And a "this will backfire" came in from Elon Musk.

Is a five year prison sentence, two suspended, and a four-year ban from running for office a harsh punishment for embezzling €4m? Or a punishment that fits the crime? It's probably worth considering that Le Pen ensured the (then) National Front voted for the law she was convicted under in 2016. If there was a conspiracy out to get her, it's just as plausible to say she was part of it.

Unfortunately, some on the left have offered a faint echo of the extreme right's victimology. Jean-Luc Mélenchon said "The choice to dismiss an elected official should only belong to the people" and that the ballots and streets should see Le Pen off. Yanis Varoufakis would also like to see Le Pen "destroyed politically", and argued this was the sort of lawfare that was used against Donald Trump, but "the French are doing it in a more obvious, less defensible way than the American Democrats." And David Broder also writes that she should not be barred from standing for the French presidency because it hands the National Rally a propaganda coup.

Does it? Trump remains culpable for the storming of the Capitol in 2021, and it's down to a failure of constitutionalist politicians on both sides of Congress for failing to make more of it and not prosecuting him with sufficient vigour. The drawn out and half-arsed pursuit of Trump through the courts allowed him to construct a persecution narrative that was always going to play well in a country where similar gambits from the right have played well in the past. One should never underestimate the appeal of the insurgent outsider. But does this read map onto France? Le Pen is certainly playing that card, but cannot escape from the fact that the prosecution and verdict proceeded without any evidence of political interference. She was corrupt and was found to be corrupt - just like any other establishment politician. The sentence was not special or egregious, and has been handed down to others for less. Le Pen's problem with the politics is that she now stands exposed as someone on the take, which isn't ideal when one's project has built up populist capital railing against establishment snouts in the trough.

The second issue with the left critique is its statement of the obvious, as if it's a profundity rather than a banality. Of course the extreme right have to be faced down politically and defeated. No one, not even the most venal and dumb elements of Macron's coalition think Le Pen's conviction means job done. So just who is the likes of Varoufakis taking to task for pretending this is the case? This is where he and the others run the risk of affirming the far right's framing. Giving credence the the RN's version is ... giving credence to the RN's version. The left should be clear that it's not the French establishment persecuting an inconvenient "outsider" via the law. This situation is the result of Le Pen's proven criminality, nothing else. No crime, no prosecution, it's as simple as that. Instead of offering backhanded defences of Le Pen, taking the RN on means adding her conviction to the political charge sheet. It's not a substitution for all other things that need to be done to break the far right, but her own incompetence and idiocy has handed her opponents a potentially useful weapon. One should not look a gift horse in the mouth, and the left should not leave this issue alone to be monopolised by the Macronites.

Image Credit

Laura Kuenssberg's Gotcha "Journalism"

Every time Laura Kuenssberg interviews anyone newsworthy, her goal is to generate "controversy" rather than shed light on a topic or, heaven forfend, produce a piece of journalism that might help demystify politics. Her interview with Justin Welby, the former Archbishop of Canterbury on Sunday morning is a textbook example of her "method".

Asked about his presiding over child abuse scandals in the Church of England, Welby at length apologised for his inaction and supplied a series of excuses for not investigating allegations properly. Why use several sentences when an "I'm incompetent" would have done? But it was when Kuenssberg got round to the notorious serial child abuser John Smyth that the "trap" was sprung. She asked if Welby had "forgiven" Smyth.

The reply was so obvious that even ChatGPT would have got it right. With the caveats of "it's really a question for the survivors" and "I shouldn't be centred in this", he said yes. Because as a serving bishop Welby still has to pay public heed to the nostrums of Christianity, in which mercy and forgiveness are primary virtues. Kuennsberg knows this, knew he couldn't offer any other answer, and immediately following the end of the interview turned to her panel of pundits and Yvette Cooper and expressed faux astonishment that the former leading cleric of the Anglican Communion could forgive such a man. As night follows day, that was the headline on the BBC website (reproduced above) and across several newspaper sites.

Apart from the usual establishment biases, it's well known that Kuenssberg's approach to politics journalism involves two things. Gossip-mongering, which serves to distort how politics really works. And to make political weather at her interviewees' expense, provided they are outwith polite Westminster company (recall the "lapses" of the Corbyn interlude), or their career is on the skids. Welby had disgraced himself as Archbishop by, at best, not noticing the Church's problems with child abuse, and attracted even more opprobrium for his jokey valedictory speech in the Lords. It was therefore safe for Kuenssberg to reuse this has-been as a headline generator, and conveniently any outraged whipped up puts distance between his time at the heart of the establishment and the establishment itself.

Kuenssberg's "techniques" wouldn't pass muster on a hyper-local blog, let alone on BBC Sunday politics programming if gotchaism didn't serve the powers that be. The so-called concern for the truth is reduced to wrenches thrown into politicians' spin, but in the hands of mainstream broadcast journalism this is to dumb down public discourse about politics even further. Kuenssberg, for instance, is almost a virtuoso at teasing out the trifles and irrelevances. She might repeat well-worn criticisms of the issue she's interviewing a politician about, but never knowingly questions the assumptions their position is based on nor suggests credible alternatives to what's being fronted. Treating politics like soap opera often means characters and performance get criticised, but the script is never open to challenge.

Quarter One By-Election Results 2025

This quarter 91,787 votes were cast in 51 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 24 council seats changed hands. For comparison you can view Quarter Four's results here.

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/- Q4	+/- Q1 2024	Avge/ Contest	+/- Seats
Conservative	50	20,275	22.1%	-2.7	-5.1	406	0
Labour	46	20,090	21.9%	-1.7	-2.2	437	-11
Lib Dem	46	16,344	17.8%	-1.7	-8.9	355	-2
Reform*	48	15,339	16.7%	+8.2	+16.3	320	+5
Green	40	7,009	7.6%	-1.1	-0.8	175	0
SNP**	7	6,069	6.6%	-1.2	+3.4	867	+3
PC***	1	397	0.4%	-0.3	-0.7	397	0
Ind****	20	5,185	5.6%	+1.2	-2.4	259	+5
Other*****	18	1,079	1.2%	-0.8	-0.1	60	0

* Reform's comparison results for 2024 are based on recomputing their tallies in Others over the respective quarter
** There were eight by-elections in Scotland
*** There were four by-elections in Wales
**** There were four Independent clashes
***** Others this quarter were Alba (135, 63), Christian People's Alliance (14), Gwlad (14, 3), Heritage (21, 12), Putting Cumbria First (76), Rejoin EU (114, 68), Scottish Family Party (65), Scottish Socialist Party (271), SDP (69, 14), Sovereignty (18), TUSC (52), UKIP (41, 24)

The vote shares here closely mirror March's by-election results, and by and large the same comments apply. Labour is losing councillors like they're going out of fashion, though their candidates on the whole perform better than everyone else's. The rise of Reform has dented all standings, but even so they're under performing pollsters' estimates. But also Labour's duff start to government has seen the SNP recoup lost ground at their expense too. Is it too early to forecast another SNP administration and a 2015/19-style wipe out at the next election?

Now's a good time to mention the side project - what's happening to Independents and whether they will suffer from the coming of Reform. And the picture from these results is mixed. They're up five councillors and have won more votes than the previous quarter. But support is down on this quarter last year, and they fielded fewer candidates; 20 this year versus 34 last year and 31 the year before. Something to keep an eye on and we'll revisit this at the end of June.

Image Credit

Local Council By-Elections March 2025

This month saw 35,972 votes cast in 20 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. Six council seats changed hands. For comparison with January's results, see here.

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/- Feb	+/- Mar 24	Avge/ Contest	+/- Seats
Conservative	20	7,268	20.2%	-3.8	+3.2	363	0
Labour	17	7,603	21.1%	-3.1	-1.1	447	-4
Lib Dem	19	5,245	14.6%	-4.6	-6.5	276	0
Reform*	19	5,785	16.1%	-3.3	+16.1	304	0
Green	15	3,297	9.2%	+2.2	-3.4	220	0
SNP**	3	3,190	8.9%	+5.3	+3.0	737	+2
PC***	1	397	1.1%	+1.1	-0.1	1,063	0
Ind****	5	2,514	7.0%	+5.3	-12.1	503	+2
Other*****	9	673	1.9%	+1.1	+1.0	75	0

* Reform's comparison results are based on recomputing their tallies from last year's Others
** There were three by-elections in Scotland
*** There were two by-elections in Wales
**** There were no Independent clashes
***** Others this month consisted of Alba (135), Gwlad (14, 3), Rejoin EU (114), Scottish Socialist Party (271), SDP (14), TUSC (52), UKIP (41, 24)

Another set of vote tallies that look a bit like current polling, except the Conservative and Labour votes are even more depressed. Lack of enthusiasm for their offerings? Yes, but because these are local elections the ridiculous votes scored by the larger Scottish council wards and two very strong Independent challenges have served to push all the votes down. Don't get celebrating that first reduction in the Reform vote just yet.

A couple of things worth noting. The rise of Reform has meant more options for right wing voters, so those who might have given the Greens a punt on account of conservationist/envirnmental concerns now have a choice closer to their politics. That in mind, it's remarkable that the Greens managed to increase their vote share this month. That indicates their vote is sturdy and stable. I think Labour's vote is worth considering too. Despite the dark deeds, and the right leaning profile of the voters who normally turn out for council by-elections (giving the Tories, and to a slightly lesser extent, Reform an advantage), their popular vote still outclassed the second placed Tories despite having three fewer candidates. It did not stop them from dropping four seats though, something that is sure to happen throughout April and into May.

6 March
Barnet, Finchley Church End, Con hold
Canterbury, Gorrell, Grn hold
Canterbury, Herne & Broomfield, Con hold
Canterbury, St Stephen's, Lab hold
Carmarthenshire, Llanddarog, PC hold
Eastleigh, Hamble & Netley, LDem hold
Hounslow, Brentford East, Lab hold
Hounslow, Syon & Brentford Lock, Ind gain from Lab
Pendle, Vivary Bridge, LDem gain from Con

13 March
East Devon, Exe Valley, LDem hold
West Lothian, Broxburn, Uphall & Winchburgh, SNP hold

19 March
Harborough, Glen, Con hold
Three Rivers, Abbots Langley & Bedmond, Con gain from LDem

20 March
Glasgow, North East, SNP gain from Lab
Glasgow, Southside Central, SNP gain from Lab
Mole Valley, Holmwoods & Beare Green, LDem hold
North Kesteven, Bracebridge Heath, Con hold

27 March
Maldon, Maldon North, Con hold
Redbridge, Mayfield, Ind gain from Lab
Swansea, Penllergaer, Ind hold

Image Credit