UK By-elections thread, 2021-

[Blair]

The true by election legacy based off the Twitter discord that the result proves your pre existing views were right (including mine!)

[cp]

It would be nice it brainless and unfunny sh!tposting could be kept out of what has traditionally been a high-quality board.

Why do you hate fun?

[CumbrianLefty]

It doesn't mean much but it's funny nonetheless:
Labour got fewer votes than they have members in this seat.

Very possible a majority of their members voted LibDem.

(as may also have happened in 2016 at Richmond Park)

[Statilius the Epicurean]

lmao

I suppose we've been overdue this sort of classic Liberal by-election upset and, as noted above, there were some excellent local issues to work with. Presumably there will be some frothing and indignation on the government backbenches which may or may not have consequences.

Did it really boil down to "NIMBYism" or is there subtler stuff going on locally in Buckinghamshire as well? I wasn't really following this one until seeing the (hilarious) result.

This thread probably downplays opposition to HS2 and the planning laws revision a bit but is a good perspective on the sort of issues percolating that weren't related to Nimby stuff.

https://twitter.com/BridgetFox/status/1405773253705011211

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Did it really boil down to "NIMBYism" or is there subtler stuff going on locally in Buckinghamshire as well? I wasn't really following this one until seeing the (hilarious) result.

Opposition to 'Big Train Go Choo Choo' and to some proposed (actually quite minor and generally oversold) changes to planning laws were clearly foundational to what just happened, but the thing about a classic Liberal by-election upset is that a remarkable range of other grumbles will doubtless have been uncovered and exploited, whether exactly relevant or not. They are good at that.*

It is also clear that the Conservatives were complacent and didn't really expect to be put under any pressure - which is often disastrous because there comes a point when you do notice and then you start to panic and then people locally notice and this actually only encourages things.

It may also be the case that the strategy the Conservative Party has adopted since May took over - to move away from the narrow but tight electoral 'coalition' that Cameron developed towards a broad but loose one better able to win large parliamentary majorities - increased the risk factors. Broadly speaking this government looks to the interests of the median voter in this constituency, yes, but they don't feel as if they're being pandered to. There are, it turns out, risks to the broad-but-loose approach. If it the by-election does turn out to mean anything it will be because of internal Conservative Party ructions as a result of this.

People suggesting that this represents gLobAL tRenDs or vAluEs and so on are being rather silly, of course. This is a very, very right-wing part of the world, deeply conservative in a true sense, absolutely not 'progressive', and the LibDems (very sensibly!) ran what was an objectively right-wing campaign, even if the tone was (it always is) wrapped up with a yellow smiley face.

_{*And it is the main reason why activists from other parties hate them.}

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is of course entirely possible that the fallout from this result makes a Labour loss in B&S less likely. At the very least, had they remotely foreseen this possibility the Tories might well have tried to ensure both contests were held on the same day.

Labour's basic problem in that constituency is (and was back in the 80s and 90s as you don't need to be told but others won't be aware) that it is nastily polarised in a really weird and unhealthy way, and so just as any trouble in the eastern half of it makes winning it all the trickier, any drop in enthusiasm at the western end would turn the other way.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Two other points for the moment. The first is that one thing this amusing result does remind us of is that the salient fact of politics in our age is that the concept of a 'safe seat' is redundant. Such things no longer exist. Most of the electorate is loyal to no one one and support is conditional and always open to review at very short notice.

The second is that by-elections are fundamentally meaningless events - note when they go the way the observer wants they portend major things, but when they do not then, well, here is a list of excuses to read out in a dull tone of voice. They pretty much never signposts or portents. However, they can matter when they cause politicians to react, to do things that they would otherwise not have done. The most consequential by-election since something approaching universal suffrage was Newport 1922 - not because it pointed to any sort of future (it most certainly did not), but because it gave Conservative backbenchers an excuse to end the Coalition and bring down Lloyd George. Similarly, Orpington mattered because it caused panic in the Conservative Party not because it portended a great wave of orange across middle class suburbia. The latter, after all, did not happen.

In other words, if this by-election turns out to matter it would be as another step on the ladder that marks the Resistible Rise of Rishi Sunak or some other ambitious member of the cabinet who knows how to work the Parliamentary Tea Rooms.

[afleitch]

There's a case to be made that in an alternate 2019, this is the sort of result that could have happened in a wealthy, west of London leaning seat that was estimated at 55% Remain. That it didn't was of course due to a myriad of different reasons that in the end, had little to do with the Lib Dems. Indeed, the seat itself despite the Lib Dems having a bit of sh-t year, did see their vote rebound to what they had been previously getting (before 2015) since the days of the Alliance. So seats like these are fertile grounds for Lib Dem by-election wins and the sorts of seats that become fertile grounds for Lib Dem by-election wins is very different bag than it was a decade or more ago.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

There's a case to be made that in an alternate 2019, this is the sort of result that could have happened in a wealthy, west of London leaning seat that was estimated at 55% Remain. That it didn't was of course due to a myriad of different reasons that in the end, had little to do with the Lib Dems. Indeed, the seat itself despite the Lib Dems having a bit of sh-t year, did see their vote rebound to what they had been previously getting (before 2015) since the days of the Alliance. So seats like these are fertile grounds for Lib Dem by-election wins and the sorts of seats that become fertile grounds for Lib Dem by-election wins is very different bag than it was a decade or more ago.

The seat does strike me as one that the Lib Dems should target in a general election, but the biggest hurdle they face is incumbency.

Also, for a bit of fun: If you want really amusing results, here’s what happens when you apply the swings to Batley and Spen:

Lib Dems 35.1%
Labour 31.5%
Tories 16.1%
Loonies (not just the Monster Raving variety) 17.6%
Greens -0.3%

[Geoffrey Howe]

I've had it up to here with people calling south Buckinghamshire "progressive." The Guardian recently alluded to it being "bourgeois bohemian."
Somewhere doesn't vote over 50% Tory in 2001 if it's progressive!

[Storr]

I've had it up to here with people calling south Buckinghamshire "progressive." The Guardian recently alluded to it being "bourgeois bohemian."
Somewhere doesn't vote over 50% Tory in 2001 if it's progressive!

"bourgeois bohemian" is beyond parody and hilariously ridiculous.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I've had it up to here with people calling south Buckinghamshire "progressive." The Guardian recently alluded to it being "bourgeois bohemian."
Somewhere doesn't vote over 50% Tory in 2001 if it's progressive!

"bourgeois bohemian" is beyond parody and hilariously ridiculous.

People are force-fitting a label onto Am&Ches purely on basis on what party it voted for. Vapid and stupid, exactly on par with what to expect from the British press.
edit: post #19,000

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've had it up to here with people calling south Buckinghamshire "progressive." The Guardian recently alluded to it being "bourgeois bohemian."
Somewhere doesn't vote over 50% Tory in 2001 if it's progressive!

"bourgeois bohemian" is beyond parody and hilariously ridiculous.

TIL the [checks notes] Chiltern Hills are basically just northern Brooklyn with quainter architecture. If the Grauniad frames it that way, it must be true!

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1406004486313844745?s=20

And the potential flip side of the coin. Could mean a quick end to Starmer's time at the helm.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's in general territory of what GE '19 would have looked like there without the right-wing independent standing of course.* Whether that is a sign for or against accuracy is a debatable point. And the usual comments about constituency polling and by-election polling apply (with the extra point that when they're off you don't generally even know in what direction). But if at all accurate this would indicate a competitive election.

_{*While 'add the Brexit Party vote to the Tory vote' is, in most constituencies, pretty questionable, the sort of local grouping who are very clearly pulling from one side of things would be a different story.}

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As an aside it is an odd thing that all three English by-elections so far have/are happened/happening in constituencies right at the top of the defending party's theoretical 'actually this would not be ideal' lists - and for different reasons in all cases.

[Conservatopia]

As an aside it is an odd thing that all three English by-elections so far have/are happened/happening in constituencies right at the top of the defending party's theoretical 'actually this would not be ideal' lists - and for different reasons in all cases.

Yes and we could soon have by elections in Delyn and Wakefield, both marginal seats that the Tories gained in 2019.

[CumbrianLefty]

That poll apparently has Labour ahead before "likelihood to vote" is taken into account. Might not just the result in Chesham but the news from nearby Wakefield dampen Tory enthusiasm, I wonder.

[Zinneke]

I've had it up to here with people calling south Buckinghamshire "progressive." The Guardian recently alluded to it being "bourgeois bohemian."
Somewhere doesn't vote over 50% Tory in 2001 if it's progressive!

Tbf this seems like the kind of place that changes landscape fairly quickly in 20 years. Maybe in another 20 years, with HS2 and better train infrastructure in general, and in a world where Corona doesn't happen and put the brakes on London's overpopulation, this place would look a lot more progressive.

[Cassius]

I've had it up to here with people calling south Buckinghamshire "progressive." The Guardian recently alluded to it being "bourgeois bohemian."
Somewhere doesn't vote over 50% Tory in 2001 if it's progressive!

Tbf this seems like the kind of place that changes landscape fairly quickly in 20 years. Maybe in another 20 years, with HS2 and better train infrastructure in general, and in a world where Corona doesn't happen and put the brakes on London's overpopulation, this place would look a lot more progressive.

Yes, it’s certainly true that a lot of these places have changed in the intervening twenty years - after all, a lot of the voters who voted in 2001 are, for lack of a better word, dead, and new ones have arrived/come of age to take their place (also bear in mind that 2001 was an extremely low turnout election by British standards, which probably benefited the Tories somewhat).

On the other hand, as has been recapitulated at length by other posters, the reasons for the Lib Dems victory here were basically conservative, reactionary even, ie opposition to any infrastructure/housing development in the local area. Now I’ve got no objection to that (I grew up in and my Mum still lives in a similarly rural place and I hate the new estates of Garage Mahals popping up all over the place there), but to frame it as ‘progressive’ strikes me as incorrect (no one would ever accuse me of being a ‘progressive’ that’s for sure!). I remember reading a set of interviews with some constituents where one, who had recently arrived from London, stated bluntly that new builds (which would presumably house further arrivals from London) were destroying ‘the character’ of the local area, which is in essence pitch perfect ‘I’m alright Jack pull up the ladder’ type stuff which one would think people of a progressive bent would be immune to (of course they’re not, but that’s a whole other argument).

[CumbrianLefty]

As an aside it is an odd thing that all three English by-elections so far have/are happened/happening in constituencies right at the top of the defending party's theoretical 'actually this would not be ideal' lists - and for different reasons in all cases.

Yes and we could soon have by elections in Delyn and Wakefield, both marginal seats that the Tories gained in 2019.

Could be a nice present for whoever Labour's new leader is

[rc18]

As an aside it is an odd thing that all three English by-elections so far have/are happened/happening in constituencies right at the top of the defending party's theoretical 'actually this would not be ideal' lists - and for different reasons in all cases.

Yes and we could soon have by elections in Delyn and Wakefield, both marginal seats that the Tories gained in 2019.

Could be a nice present for whoever Labour's new leader is

A new leader means losing B&S and an internecine war of succession. It also raises the question of who exactly; let's face it Labour is hardly brimming with talent right now. Polls are not necessarily going to stay where they are.

Be careful what you wish for. The situation in Delyn and Wakefield may be very different under a new LOTO, and poison yet another opposition.

[CumbrianLefty]

Nothing is risk free, but given where the party will be if B&S is indeed lost many (including in the PLP) are going to see it as a risk worth taking. Its not about the polls, its not about any "vaccine boost" for the Tories, its about Starmer haplessly alienating almost every part of Labour's existing electoral coalition in the "fools gold" pursuit of "red wall" pensioners at literally any cost.

(who then - surprise! - turn out to be more fanatically pro-Tory than ever)

SKS's not being a "natural politician" was always a potential strength *and* weakness. To make it the former he needed to select a good team around him, it is surely indisputable that he totally has not.

[Oryxslayer]

Nothing is risk free, but given where the party will be if B&S is indeed lost many (including in the PLP) are going to see it as a risk worth taking. Its not about the polls, its not about any "vaccine boost" for the Tories, its about Starmer haplessly alienating almost every part of Labour's existing electoral coalition in the "fools gold" pursuit of "red wall" pensioners at literally any cost.

(who then - surprise! - turn out to be more fanatically pro-Tory than ever)

SKS's not being a "natural politician" was always a potential strength *and* weakness. To make it the former he needed to select a good team around him, it is surely indisputable that he totally has not.

Yes, if Starmer oversees two by-election losses then its hard to not imagine the daggers coming out.  Labour arguably have the best B&S candidate possible, so the reaction to a loss would be that much worse.

Starmer's issue, as noted, is that he is a untraditional politician tasked with navigating a political minefield that even experienced politicians abroad have found challenging. This dilemma is of course how most parliamentary systems have unintentionally formed Unity governments in all but name when it comes to Coronavirus-related issues - the most relevant issues for voters presently. Starmer has chosen to not even bother attempting the Minefield, which led to this idea at the local elections that Labour doesn't exactly stand for anything - or at least nothing different from the governing Tories. It doesn't help that the things put forward, like self-defeating flag debate, are superficial and by nature secondary to the big policies that should be proposed.

The proper policy would have been to follow Labour's ancestors and copied Atlee. Labour then sought to "win the peace" by supporting the war but also putting forward a litany of policies that would utilize the war to rebuild society better than previously. If you look at other democratic societies right now, the most successful non-government parties all looked beyond their Coronavirus unity governments. The pandemic either exposed some fault that must be corrected for, its an excuse to move forward on some transformative policy, or the country should reform while rebuilding and progress towards something better.

Which brings us to the case of Andy Burnam, whose stock is on the rise since before the locals. He's got a program, a clear identity, a platform of experience presently outside of Westminster, and I'm not sure if there is anyone who isn't factionalized enough to stop him.

[Blair]

A narrow result with Galloway being the margin of difference would theoretically allow Keir to say 'well blame George' but it's Keir's political strategy that allowed this gap to open. (Even though there is a very good argument that GC would have done this under Nandy or even RLB)

My hunch is that the loss will see Keir announce some sort of major change in an effort to keep the PLP on-side; he has the luxury of the Socialist Campaign Group not having the numbers to trigger an election but equally all it takes is Lisa Nandy or Angela Rayner to run and you'd find 40 signatures among their loyalists, the disaffected & the other sorts in the PLP.

It's rather depressing that neither by-elections were actually necessary & as Al said are on the upper edge of where Labour would struggle. However B&S would show what the locals prove- that Keir is neither winning back the mythical red wall voter (basically people who defected from 2005 onwards) and is equally losing support among Labours reliable vote.

Nothing is risk free, but given where the party will be if B&S is indeed lost many (including in the PLP) are going to see it as a risk worth taking. Its not about the polls, its not about any "vaccine boost" for the Tories, its about Starmer haplessly alienating almost every part of Labour's existing electoral coalition in the "fools gold" pursuit of "red wall" pensioners at literally any cost.

(who then - surprise! - turn out to be more fanatically pro-Tory than ever)

SKS's not being a "natural politician" was always a potential strength *and* weakness. To make it the former he needed to select a good team around him, it is surely indisputable that he totally has not.

Yes, if Starmer oversees two by-election losses then its hard to not imagine the daggers coming out.  Labour arguably have the best B&S candidate possible, so the reaction to a loss would be that much worse.

Starmer's issue, as noted, is that he is a untraditional politician tasked with navigating a political minefield that even experienced politicians abroad have found challenging. This dilemma is of course how most parliamentary systems have unintentionally formed Unity governments in all but name when it comes to Coronavirus-related issues - the most relevant issues for voters presently. Starmer has chosen to not even bother attempting the Minefield, which led to this idea at the local elections that Labour doesn't exactly stand for anything - or at least nothing different from the governing Tories. It doesn't help that the things put forward, like self-defeating flag debate, are superficial and by nature secondary to the big policies that should be proposed.

The proper policy would have been to follow Labour's ancestors and copied Atlee. Labour then sought to "win the peace" by supporting the war but also putting forward a litany of policies that would utilize the war to rebuild society better than previously. If you look at other democratic societies right now, the most successful non-government parties all looked beyond their Coronavirus unity governments. The pandemic either exposed some fault that must be corrected for, its an excuse to move forward on some transformative policy, or the country should reform while rebuilding and progress towards something better.

Which brings us to the case of Andy Burnam, whose stock is on the rise since before the locals. He's got a program, a clear identity, a platform of experience presently outside of Westminster, and I'm not sure if there is anyone who isn't factionalized enough to stop him.

He doesn't have a Westminster seat & even a resignation to find him one this year could have a disastrous impact- seeing as he pledged to serve a full term. I expect he will run for a seat in 2023- the joy of being popular & being a mayor & running with that exact purpose is that seat shopping is a lot easier!