2023–24 by-elections thread

Selby, yes Tories will take it back.

Somerset i'm not so sure. The Lib Dems didn't just squeak it, they won it by 11,000 votes. It's also a former Lib Dem heartlands seat.

If the Tories regain Wakefield then Labour are doing something seriously wrong and/or the polls are way off. It would also means the Tories would probably win a majority. It's a red wall seat that the Tories won narrowly in 2019. Labour shouldn't just be winning there but winning it by 10,000 plus votes.

Hartlepool a tough one, but all the polling shows the biggest swings away from the Tories to be in the red wall so if Labour have any sort of lead in the polls they should take it.

North Shropshire yes, Tories should take it back.

In Somerset the Tory candidate got 36,000 in 2019, even adjusting for the extra Lib Dem votes this time there are more than 10,000 Tory votes likely to account for.

In Wakefield you have to remember that they won the by-election but with all of 13,000 votes. A lot of voters simply stayed home. Labour needs a very large split.

Scotland is the very interesting one because while there’s a large swing to Labour (9.5% against the Tories, 11% against the SNP), universal swing would actually produce an average 1.5% swing from SNP to Tory (they are losing more than the Tories - SNP could lose 14-17 seats in total).

Very interesting. Sounds like Labour would win quite a few seats back in Scotland if that carries through to the election.

It's been truly farcical listening to the rubbish both parties have been throwing out about Ulez. It's come out that the extension was actually a Tory government initiative imposed on the London Mayor. Both Sunak and Starmer have attacked it and demanded 'pragmatic revision'. The scrappage scheme, which is the underlying problem, is woefully underfunded, again as a result of government decisions and not London decisions. Meanwhile, other large cities continue to drive their own Ulez proposals - because it's basically a very good and necessary concept.

Starmer's reaction to this plus his recent u turn on the two child benefit cap has possibly blown it for me in terms of voting Labour.

He and Labour have shown that the second there is any pushback at all on a progressive policy that they will back down immediately. He was trying to bully Khan into dropping Ulez but thankfully Khan has said he is not dropping it.

Yes, they seem to be in a permanent state of terror of the Daily Mail. It's utterly pathetic. Also, voters know they believe something different, so it just comes across as lacking courage.

It's just infuriating. Labour may well end up in government, but if no labour policy is going to survive a few negative headlines from the Mail, then what is the point in the Labour party?

Very interesting. Sounds like Labour would win quite a few seats back in Scotland if that carries through to the election.

It's been truly farcical listening to the rubbish both parties have been throwing out about Ulez. It's come out that the extension was actually a Tory government initiative imposed on the London Mayor. Both Sunak and Starmer have attacked it and demanded 'pragmatic revision'. The scrappage scheme, which is the underlying problem, is woefully underfunded, again as a result of government decisions and not London decisions. Meanwhile, other large cities continue to drive their own Ulez proposals - because it's basically a very good and necessary concept.

Maybe Ulez just isn't as generally unpopular as the Tories and Labour Party HQ say it is?

Latest London polling figures.

A relatively unknown Trump supporting nutjob who was only announced 7 days ago polling at 31% in London is... Disappointing.

The purpose of the Labour party, as with any other party, is to win power via elections. If we look at the recent Selby byelection results in percentage terms we see a massive swing to Labour and thus a commanding victory. However, if we look at the absolute numbers, we see a large decline in turnout, which quite closely matches the drop in Tory support (it also appears that a lot of Lid Dems lent their votes to Labour too). Adding the presumed stay-at-home Tory voters to the Tory count would give quite a large Conservative victory in 2023 - inspection of the numbers does suggest Labour's win was primarily due to Tory voters not turning up. Linking this to the first point regarding the purpose of the Labour party, it is not clear if there is much demand for more progressive policies; so if Starmer wants to win the next election, it may be safer for him to aim for the centre.

What's the point in the Labour Party winning power only to govern exactly like the Tory Party?

I think this too. No choice is no choice at all.

There's always this hope amongst progressives that Labour only play at sounding right wing to get elected, but despite the nonsense to the contrary in the right wing media, the reality is that when Labour sound right wing in election campaigns, they govern from the right once in office.

Yes, a lot of people I know who are natural labour voters are hoping that Labour are just trying to sound tough and centrist to win the election, but once they are in office will govern as a cuddly centre left outfit.

However, my view is increasingly that Starmer and Reeves aren't tacking to the centre (right) for electoral reasons, but rather because it's what they actually believe. They are pretty fiscally conservative and largely play from the Cameron/Osborne playbook.

I think this too. No choice is no choice at all.

There's always this hope amongst progressives that Labour only play at sounding right wing to get elected, but despite the nonsense to the contrary in the right wing media, the reality is that when Labour sound right wing in election campaigns, they govern from the right once in office.

Isn't this what Labout did in the past, though? In 1997 they didn't campaign with a progressive manifesto, if anything they straight up just said 'we will stick to the Conservatives economic plan but we'll govern better'.

In practice, of course, they did government more progressively than the Conservatives would have done. It's just that they had to market themselves towards the centre (during the election campaign) to avoid putting people off voting for them. I imagine Starmer is trying to replicate the same thing here.

Labour tried to push a progressive manifesto in 2015, 2017 and 2019. They failed each time.

I think this too. No choice is no choice at all.

There's always this hope amongst progressives that Labour only play at sounding right wing to get elected, but despite the nonsense to the contrary in the right wing media, the reality is that when Labour sound right wing in election campaigns, they govern from the right once in office.

Is this really a shock though.

While Blair himself was an anomoly (possibly even in the Labour 97 party), the bulk of MP's as of 2016 were basically Brownites like Miliband and Balls (i.e. not likely to privatise much but not likely to indulge in more than a few token social policies). While the Labour MP's elected in 2017 and 2019 were likely more Corbynite, 2017 only saw an additional 30 Labour MP's and they suffered losses in 2019 so if there is a net gain in Corbyn supporters at MP level, it's not likely to be large (and since Starmer's men have control of the important stuff, you'd imagine the 2024 set who want to be elected probably are not likely to be overly radical either).

I also tend to think that actually one of the problems with the Labour left is that they are too greedy in their desires. If you look at the Tories, they gained ~166 MP's between 2010-2019 and generally over time they have moved to the left on the economy (though not by much) but became more socially conservative over time. Those who want more Labour radicalism should support the idea of a moderate first term building trust before becoming ambitious for the second term. Even Thatcher was more radical in 83-87 than she was in 79.

There's a logic in that for sure. But I don't get the sense at all that Starmer and Reeves will be more 'ambitious' in the second term because they are both fundamentally fiscal conservatives.

I don't think anyone is demanding the moon on a stick from Starmer, but even just two or three significant, costed pledges - such as removing the two child cap, are surely achievable and politically palatable.