Revolutionary Deflation

Some things are just irritating. In the 15 years or so I spent around the far left, what always got my goat was revolutionary inflation. The practice common among all the groups to talk up the impact of their interventions. For instance, the 2006 NHS demo against hospital bed losses saw Stoke Socialist Party boost attendance from around 2,500 to 5,000 in the subsequent edition of The Socialist. If you've been in a Trotskyist group, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Inflated membership figures, inflated attendees at party events, inflated paper sales and, most egregious of all, an inflated sense of influence and self-importance. It annoyed because it substituted wishful thinking for accurate assessment, of consensual illusion for analysis. Little wonder that folks didn't understand why their activities weren't getting wider purchase, and why activists tended to stick around only for short periods. It was the tinder box for burnout.

On the internet-travelling left, there's a similar phenomenon: revolutionary deflation. Instead of inflating the strength of the left and its works, this goes in the opposite direction and talks down the standing and appeal of its opponents. And nowhere do we see this more clearly than on the occasion of parliamentary by-elections. You might have missed the most recent one in Stretford and Urmston, which took place on Thursday. With Kate Green leaving the Commons to carry bags for Andy Burnham, Trafford council leader Andrew Western easily dispatched the Tories in a safe Labour seat. With little room to add to the party's vote, Labour nevertheless put on nine points and came within stretching distance of 70%. The Tories were a distant second, and the Greens an even more remote third - with the overhyped Reform doing as dismally as they always do. A sign that Labour's on course to win the next election? In all likelihood, yes.

This is where revolutionary deflation comes in. Rather than admitting to themselves that, electorally speaking, Starmer is now doing well in the polls some comrades argue that the by-elections are flattering him. And their proof? The turnouts. On Thursday, turnout was well down (by 43 points) on the general election. The story was similar but not as pronounced in Chester. A strong result for Labour, except the turnout was 30 points down. Proof, as if it was needed, that Starmer is an albatross around Labour's neck and his chances of getting in Number 10 are lower than supposed.

It would be a stretch to say Starmer is popular. For most people, he's background scenery. They're only interested in what he has to say when there's a big crisis, such as his announcement on the energy price freeze this summer. Other than that, he's neither offending nor gaining plaudits from the punters at large. And while Starmer has his moments in the clanking and shanking of Westminster knockabout versus Rishi Sunak, his acquisition of poll leads have largely been a passive exercise. Labour's doing well because the Tories are in the mire, and their chances of extracting themselves are close to zero.

If the general consensus is meh, with polling alternately showing slight leads or slight deficits in the best Prime Minister scores, does the deflationist argument stand up? Not really. If low by-election turnouts during Starmer's time are indications of his lack of popularity, then surely it was the case for Jeremy Corbyn. In his last two English by-elections of 2019, turnouts were 30 points and 36 points down on the previous election. Even during the lead up to 1997, by-elections saw some shocking numbers. Barnsley East in 1996 was 39 points down. Hemsworth, also in 1996 - and which saw Jon Trickett returned to the Commons for the first time - was 36 points in deficit. Ditto for Islwyn the year before, and a 35-pointer from Dudley the year before that. Whether you liked Tony Blair and John Smith or not, they were at that time as popular as mainstream politicians can be. Perhaps we might consider other factors are in play.

In mainstream political science, a distinction is made between first and second order elections. The latter in this country consist of by-elections, local authority elections (and by-elections), mayoral elections, the EU elections (as was), and perhaps still (just about) elections to Holyrood and the Senedd, and the London Assembly. When (if) Labour implement Gordon Brown's constitutional proposals, the Council of the Nations and the Regions, which is slated to replace the Lords, will also fit in this category. They are "second order" because it's only the general election that matters. It determines who the government of the day is. Everyone understands this, and so there tends to be higher turnouts for first order than second order elections. And this isn't just true of the UK and its Westminster system, but of all liberal democracies. By-elections "don't count", so we see two kinds of behaviour. Voters are more likely to stray from their preferred party (where they have one) to deliver a protest vote, and/or are more disposed to staying at home because the stakes are low. So turnout is lower, regardless of whether the Labour leader at the time was on the right or the left of the party.

There's a second problem with the deflationist argument. Those who vote in second order by-elections are the politically motivated and interested, and older people. Voting data has shown for decades the latter are more likely to vote than younger people in general elections, and this tendency becomes even more exacerbated in second order contests. Because older people are also more likely to vote Conservative, this also gives the Tories an edge. Therefore, when Labour wins by-elections and does so by increased margins, it suggests the party is making inroads into that Tory vote. This appears borne out by polling. Labour still trails the Tories among the over 65s, but not by the yawning chasms of the years previously. Therefore, Starmer and his supporters are justified in feeling buoyed by Labour's recent by-election performances. Despite the low turnouts.

Where does this leave the deflationist argument? Nowhere. It's revealed as nothing but an illusion, if not a wilful delusion. It gets in the way of analysing things as they are. Not because writing about the strength of Labour's support is jolly japes, but because getting a handle on Starmer's support as it is is crucial for campaigns that might wring concessions out of his government in the future. It's this view to action that must guide our thinking. Therefore, these suggestions need bearing in mind when approaching by-elections. Unless something other than changing the world is your primary concern.

Image Credit