As Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar bask in the afterglow of their victory, it behoves us to dissect the result. In recent years, Scottish Labour hasn't exactly impressed. In 2021 it scored its worse ever result at Holyrood, and had appeared to give up trying to oppose the SNP. 2014/15 saw the mass migration of the most progressive sections of the party's base to the camp of independence, it looked increasingly as if the party was only interested in fighting the Tories for the declining unionist vote. A phrase consisting of bald men and combs often came to mind. And on and on in this vein Scottish Labour continued, and nothing might have changed were it not for events beyond Scottish Labour's control. The first person Sarwar has to thank for the turn around in his party's fortunes was Liz Truss. As per everywhere, Tory ratings collapsed in Scotland following her debacle of a government. The result was the affirmation of Labour as the main party of the union, and therefore of unionist votes. Something the Tories ended up conceding accidentally on purpose earlier this year.
Political fortune further smiled on Labour following the severe reversals suffered by the SNP over the last year. The party's most formidable opponent, Nicola Sturgeon, resigned and is subject to a police investigation. And then, at last!, a tangible recovery in the polls, coinciding with the end of the constitutional road to a second independence referendum. Why might this impact on SNP support? It meant the expectation of a better future disentangled from whatever one might project onto an independent Scotland, given this was definitively off the table. And Labour's polling surge in England meant a Starmer government might have something more to offer than ceaseless Tory/SNP deadlock over constitutional questions when there are other pressing issues. This despite Labour's determination to promise almost nothing. But let's not over-egg the pudding. Labour are back in the mix because it's going to win the next election. It is the viable anti-Tory alternative. The difficulties the SNP are facing, and the circumstances surround Margaret Ferrier's disgrace and exit from the Commons have all played their part in restoring Labour's fortunes.
And here we have the problem. As is customary, people who don't want to understand by-elections have been pointing out that the turnout means Rutherglen is actually a disaster for Keir Starmer. No, it would have been if Labour had lost. But it didn't. Nor does it suggest that SNP and Tory supporters stayed at home. Elections don't operate with solid, discrete blocks of voters. However, allowing for the usual turnout depression that attends second order elections, what it does tell us is something we already know: that there isn't enthusiasm for Labour and the Labour leader outside of a very narrow base. Presently Labour doesn't have to pay it much mind. The state of the Tories, especially after Sunak's ridiculous speech means that Labour will cruise to a healthy majority without having to enthuse millions of voters. Indeed, I would not be surprised if they win the election with fewer votes than what Labour polled in 2017. But this suggests a party with very shallow roots and loyalties, and a lack of affection for Starmer, which was there at the beginning for Tony Blair, means the slack the electorate will give him is going to be very short indeed. No, Rutherglen isn't a disaster. It's a warning, and unless Labour ups its game and actually meets what people are expecting of it, not only will Starmer's time in government be an unhappy one he could turbocharge his Liberal Democrat and Green opponents, and make them into contenders. Enjoy the triumph while you can, there aren't many of them left.
Image Credit
4 comments:
«getting over half the vote with a 30-point margin and netting their second best vote share in the seat ever has led to some undue jubilation.»
Indeed as usual in recent by-elections (protest) non-voting or (protest) tactical voting is the dominant aspect, obscured by silly focus on percentages, and that won't happen again in a national election, where the protest vote is rare (happens usually only after a property crash).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherglen_and_Hamilton_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
2010: 46,981/61.5%: Con 4,540, NLab 28,566, LD 5,636, UKI 675, SNP 7,564
2015: 57,615/69.6%: Con 4,350, NLab 29,304, LD 1,045, UKI 1,301, SNP 30,729
2017: 50,872/63.5%: Con 9,941, Lab 19,101, LD 2,158, UKI 465, SNP 18,836
2019: 53,794/66.5%: Con 8,054, Lab 18,545, LD 2,791, UKI 629, SNP 23,775
2023: 30,477/37.2%: Con 1,192, NLab 17,485, LD 895, GRN 601, SNP 8,399
«However, allowing for the usual turnout depression that attends second order elections, what it does tell us is something we already know: that there isn't enthusiasm for Labour and the Labour leader outside of a very narrow base.»
Actually the numbers above seem to suggest that in Rutherglen New Labour had a very solid and large base, because the votes for all other parties collapsed, while the New Labour vote remained the same as in general elections. This superficially suggests that New Labour voters are so enthused by Starmer that they turned out in the same numbers as during a general election even if it was an election that did not matter, purely to show how loyal is their support for him.
«As is customary, people who don't want to understand by-elections have been pointing out that the turnout means Rutherglen is actually a disaster for Keir Starmer. No, it would have been if Labour had lost. But it didn't. Nor does it suggest that SNP and Tory supporters stayed at home. Elections don't operate with solid, discrete blocks of voters.»
It was a disaster for the SNP, and the New Labour vote managed to remain around the levels of 2019 and 2017, despite a huge fall in turnout, while the Conservatives and LibDem vote collapsed along with the SNP vote.
Voting overall fell by around 23,000, the SNP fell by over 15,000, the Conservatives by nearly 7,000, the LibDems by nearly 2,000, the New Labour one by 1,000.
Whether it was bad for New Labour depends on whether one thinks that this is because:
1) The SNP, Conservative, LibDem voters are demoralized and abstained while New Labour voters are enthused by Starmer and turned out, and will continue to do so.
2) Many SNP, Conservative voters switched temporarily their votes in protest to New Labour, while overall New Labour voters were not that enthused, and the protest vote will largely disappear at the general election.
As usual my guess is that it all depends on property prices in the period before the general election.
That 2015 figure tells a story all by itself. And the story is this: after 2014, lots of people voted SNP who previously hadn't voted. I.e. lots of people cared about independence. In 2023, they've finally given up on the SNP doing anything for independence, and their votes have disappeared. Thus giving the seat back to Labour by default.
Meanwhile, in 2023, Labour's vote looks very flattered by Con votes switching. Which still doesn't flatter it all that much.
It may not have been a GE, but there was still a seat in Parliament at stake here.
The candidate has a somewhat chequered record in the LP, to wit, resigning during the Corbyn era, and that some more loyal local candidates were shoved off the short list to make way for him.
Anonymous
The point is, though, that turnouts are ALWAYS lower (and often markedly lower) in by-elections than in general election - this last didn't happen in the 1980s (and even back then it was distinctly rare)
There was also dire weather in Rutherglen for most of polling day, and this probably knocked down turnout by a point or two - it would likely have been around average for this parliament but for that.
So no, I wouldn't overegg it. And comparing byelection raw vote totals with GE ones is psephological illiteracy at best, and knowing mendacity at worst.
Post a Comment