Friday 21 July 2023

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

7 comments:

McIntosh said...

And given the results we will see what 'class envy' policy Labour drops next to appeal to the centre - how about the tax on private schools?

Graham said...

ULEZ was an issue in Uxbridge because the Tories campaigned against it.


Labour did not campaign for it; they didn’t campaign for clean air, they didn’t campaign against pollution, they didn’t explain that the scrappage scheme has extra support for those most in need.

I
nstead of campaigning on an issue thrown into the election by the Tories, Labour tried to ignore the issue.


So they lost.


In a month dominated by the effects of global heating in southern Europe, this doesn’t bode well for any future Labour government taking any significant steps to combat climate change and environmental destruction.

Blissex said...

«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.»

As usual the actual numbers are far more interesting than the percentages, especially as to guess what will happen in a an election that matters to voters, where they vote their interests rather than their peeves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerton_and_Frome_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

2001: 52,684/69.3%: Con 22,315, NLab 6,113, LD 22,983, UKI 919
2005: 54,102/70.7%: Con 22,947, NLab 5,865, LD 23,759, UKI 1,047
2010: 60,612/74.3%: Con 26,976, NLab 2,675, LD 28,793, UKI 1,932
2015: 60,309/72.2%: Con 31,960, NLab 4,419, LD 11,692, UKI 6,439
2017: 63,892/75.8%: Con 36,231, Lab 10,998, LD 13,325
2019: 64,896/75.6%: Con 36,230, Lab 8,354, LD 17,017, RUK 0, GRN 3,295
2023: 38,788/44.2%: Con 10,179, NLab 1,009, LD 21,187, RUK 1,303, GRN 3,944

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selby_and_Ainsty_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

2010: 51,728/71.1%: Con 25,562, NLab 13,297, LD 9,180, UKI 1,635, BNP 1,377
2015: 52,804/69.4%: Con 27,725, NLab 14,168, LD 1,920, UKI 7,389, GRN 1,465
2017: 56,222/74.1%: Con 32,921, Lab 19,149, LD 2,293, UKI 1,713
2019: 56,418/71,7%: Con 22,995, Lab 13,858, LD 4,842, RUK 0, GRN 1,823
2023: 35,886/44.8%: Con 12,295, NLab 16,456, LD 1,188, RUK 1,332, GRN 1,838

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uxbridge_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

2010: 45,076/63.3%: Con 21,748, NLab 10,542, LD 8,995, UKI 1,234, BNP 1,396
2015: 44,811/63.4%: Con 22,511, NLab 11,816, LD 2,215, UKI 6,346, GRN 1,414
2017: 46,694/66.8%: Con 23,176, Lab 18,862, LD 1,835, UKI 1,577, GRN 884
2019: 48,187/68.5%: Con 25,531, Lab 18,141, LD 3,026, UKI 283, GRN 1,090
2023: 31,000/46.23: Con 13,965, NLab 13,470, LD 526, REC 714, GRN 893

A protest vote in all three:

* Like in previous by-elections, Con voters protested by abstaining more than than usual for a by-election.

* Like in some by-elections New Labour voters protested by tactically voting for the LibDems or the Greens, and vice-versa in Somerton.

Particular notes:

* In Somerton the Con vote went from 36k to 10k and the combined NL+LD vote from 25k to 22k, almost all LD, looks good for LD, but not that good.

* In Selby the Con vote went from 23k to 12k and the combined NL+LD vote from 19k to 18k. Here New Labour did fairly well, because while the difference between 2019's 14k and 2023's 16k could be almost entirely from the fall in LD votes from 5k to 1k, we have to take into account lower turnout, so it looks like NL actually gained some voters.

* In Uxbridge given the substantial lack of significant third party ("protest vote") alternatives, both the Con and NL votes were affected by low turnout, from 25K to 14k for Con and 17k to 13k for NL and LD from 3k to near zero. Showing that even if some LD voters "protested" by voting NL, there is little enthusiam for NL among voters and likely no significant switch of "soft kipper" voters from Con to NL.

If inflation and nominal interest rates fall enough by the next election and property prices resume booming it will be very difficult for NL and Starmer to win a national election by default on a "we are like the Conservatives but not the Conservatives" appeal to the protest vote.

Blissex said...

«In a month dominated by the effects of global heating»

Please note that even the most fiery propagandists no longer use the "global heating" claim as it is rather inaccurate because some (most) areas will become hotter (as they have for thousands of years) and some (a minority even if significant) will become colder.

The phrase to use is "climate change", because that is undeniable (it has been going on for billions of years).

«in southern Europe this doesn’t bode well for any future Labour government taking any significant steps to combat climate change and environmental destruction.»

Well, politics is largely about money (and power for some) and why should thatcherite voters in the UK spend a lot of their own money to lessen a bit what will happen to North Africa and Southern Europe? Especially if "climate change" means a nicer climate for England, with lower heating costs, and higher property prices?

"Climate change" in the UK (or Canada etc.) is not as much a vote winner as it would be in other places. Democracy is about doing the will of the majority, not the "right" thing.

PS: "Carbon footprint" on the other hand is a very serious matter about consumption and thus imports of fossil fuels, that is energy geopolitics, and my guess is that our elites do not feel too "democratic" about that.

Blissex said...

«arguments getting bandied about that reads undue significance into the customarily low turn outs for parliamentary by-elections»

The gold standard for understanding voting in elections that don't matter versus elections that matter are the 2019 EU elections and the 2019 UK election:

* Around 30% of Conservative voters were committed Remainiacs, and 60% committed BeLeavers.

* In the 2019 EU election the Conservatives had a tiny vote because many Conservative (and some Labour) BeLeavers voted BXP, and many Conservative (and some Labour) Remainiacs voted LD.

* In the 2019 UK election a large majority of the 30% of Conservative Remainiacs voted for "Get [HARD] Brexit Done" Johnson, holding their noses, to protect their interests for lower wage costs and higher property profits from "anti-kulak and racist trot" Corbyn. While a large percentage of the 35% of Labour BeLeavers instead switched to the Conservatives as they seemed to think that was in their interests, most still voted for "2nd Referendum" (as he was then) Starmer.

Anonymous said...

Blissex is (as so often) wrong.

In electoral politics, percentages matter far more than raw numbers. Those who don't vote, don't count - and saying "X more/fewer votes than 2019" ignores the question of churn.

Blissex said...

«In electoral politics, percentages matter far more than raw numbers. Those who don't vote, don't count»

But many of the voters that do a protest abstention or do a protest vote in by-elections and other elections that don't matter vote and vote "straight" in elections that matter, and form the percentages. So interpreting by-election absolute numbers is very important.

It is also quite important for elections that do matter, because elections still happen regularly, and as they change they are guides to voter block shifts in future elections. Only those who can't abandon the excitement of student "politics" and are invested in which personalities swan around in Whitehall look mostly at seats and percentages. Politics, and electoral politics, are a more complicated matter than that.

PS Sometimes I have the impression that Westminster "politics" among middle aged people is just a continuation of student "politics" among the same people when they were at Oxbridge and Eton.

https://scramnews.com/boris-johnson-pretended-left-wing-university-elections/
«"In 1986, [Johnson] ran for the presidency of the [Oxford] Union. Though nothing like as rabid as the Balliol JCR, the Union was sufficiently left-wing for it to be inconceivable for a Tory to be elected as president. Boris concealed his Conservative affiliation and let it be widely understood that he was a Social Democrat. [...] Boris got himself elected as president of the Oxford Union in Trinity Term.”»