« | Home | »

Bad News for the Coalition

Tags:

Yesterday’s three by-elections are, as by-elections go, interesting. They point, first of all, to widespread electoral disengagement. Even by traditional by-election standards, turn-outs were low – which confirms the pattern of this parliament. Even in by-elections which were thought to be really significant, like Corby (turn-out 45 per cent), most people don’t turn out. The figure for Rotherham (34 per cent) – which was surrounded by publicity – is telling.

The results for Labour, whatever we think of the turn-out, were good. The possibility of a real upset, like Respect’s victory in West Bradford in April, was always on the cards. Yet the Labour vote rose everywhere, including Rotherham (to my surprise), even though there was a notional swing to UKIP. Given the forced resignation of Rotherham’s former Labour MP and the behaviour of the Rotherham Council towards UKIP-minded foster parents, it could have been much worse. The reverse is true for UKIP. They did quite well in Rotherham, but could have done better. They polled, however, pretty poorly elsewhere. As a protest party with a programme (or non-programme) designed to attract any voters with a grievance they have not been as effective as the Lib Dems were in their heyday. And their electorate, ageing and white, is not an expanding one.

The results for the Lib Dems were terrible. They came eighth in Rotherham, third in Middlesbrough and fourth in Croydon North. They lost their deposits in Rotherham and Croydon. In opposition their crucial role was as a protest party, often based on local resentments; or supported by ex-Labour voters who had given up on their own party. As a result they won seats with a very mixed social profile. They can no longer play that role and it is hard to see at the moment how someone like Simon Hughes can hold his predominantly working-class seat (Bermondsey) at the next election. The Lib Dem vote will probably hold up better in middle-class seats but these results do suggest how difficult it will be for them to devise a viable way to fight the next general election.

The results for the Conservatives were not much better. Indeed, I cannot remember such a bad set of results for them. As we would expect their vote help up moderately well in Croydon but collapsed in Rotherham and Middlesbrough. In Rotherham they finished fifth, behind UKIP, the BNP and Respect as well as Labour. This points to the party’s decay in ex-industrial seats in the North and suggests that they will be lucky to hold onto the gains they made there in the last election.

Overall the three by-elections present a mixed picture of the present mood of the English electorate. Allegiances are clearly fluid, and could float off anywhere. The tendency for people’s attachment to the major parties to weaken has continued and possibly accelerated. But it would wrong to exaggerate the fluidity. The Labour vote, apart from George Galloway’s one off in West Bradford, has not continued to fragment, and much of the new floating vote is comprised of disoriented Lib Dems. Respect clearly can only succeed in very specific circumstances. The same is true of the Greens, who didn’t stand in Rotherham or Middlesbrough and came fifth in Croydon. And much of yesterday’s UKIP vote will presumably float back to wherever it came from at the next general election. Even so, UKIP will damage the Conservatives unless the political environment changes markedly. But if the Tories adopt UKIP’s rhetoric and ‘policies’ they will lose much of their business support, which could be fatal.

Comments on “Bad News for the Coalition”

  1. Rikkeh says:

    A great irony in the UKIP threat to the Tories is that the Alternative Vote, which the majority of Tories campaigned against, would (I think) have helped the Conservatives against UKIP.

    UKIP voters are very unlikely to want to vote Labour and so might have been relied upon to cast their alternate votes for the Conservatives.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement