2023–24 by-elections thread

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.

The problem is that it just let's the Tories frame the argument. It accepts that you can't change people's minds or persuade people.

When you look at the scale of the challenges we have as a country - climate, NHS, social care, schools, child poverty, hosting etc - it's so disappointing for Labour's response to be a shrug of the shoulders and say "there's no money left".

But it's also that Starmer seems to enjoy attacking the left in a rather vindictive way. He rules out any vaguely left or centre left policy and accused his opponents of being unserious. He also is extremely authoritarian - kicking people out the party or banning them from standing if they are deemed to be even slightly on the left. See what happened to Jamie Driscoll.

If I wanted a Tory government I'd vote for one.

Sadly that's the way it works. The Conservatives, and the media that backs them, frame the argument. Of course in an ideal world Labour could run with a progressive manifesto and get elected with it, but the past three elections (and all the elections in the 80s and 90s, excluding 97) showed that isn't possible.

What would you rather Labour would do, at this stage? Any commitment to massive spending will immediately be met with an onslaught of 'how are you going to pay for it?' questions, followed by accusations that Labour are reckless with spending. This is precisely the thing that Labour want to avoid as it is the sort of thing that tanks their poll ratings.

I think just a few significant, costed policies. Removing the two child cap, free school meals, bringing water back into public ownership...whatever.

The media pressure to drop any progressive policy won't stop in government. It will be worse if anything.

What you're describing are things that cost billions of pounds, particularly water renationalisation. If Labour commit to any of these then the natural question people will ask is 'How are you going to pay for it?'.

Labour have come out against non-doms and the charitable status of private schools, two non-controversial means of funding those policies, but the money they raise won't be enough to pay for everything. They can't milk those cows forever. To fully fund these policies they will need to raise or introduce taxes elsewhere all the while battling against an economy that is in the **** thanks to the Conservatives.

So what do they say? If you were Labour leader, what would you do?

Whenever Labour have come out with big spending plans they always get voted down by the electorate.

I think they can be honest and say they would look to raise taxes on the very wealthiest - something that has popular support.

I don't doubt that the press and Tory party would use every trick in the book to fight it, but the Labour party needs to be able to hold its nerve and persuade people of their argument. The Daily Mail doesn't speak for Britain - I don't know why Starmer thinks it does.

The Tories last week were talking about abolishing inheritance tax - something that would benefit only the ultra wealthy and cost the taxpayer 7 billion. Yet labour can't muster the courage to pledge an extra 1.5 billion to abolish the two child benefit cap, that would take 300,000 children out of poverty?

Labour tried this strategy in 2015, 2017 and 2019. In each of those elections they made the promise to fund their spending increasea by taxing the top 1%. We all know how badly that went for the party, we have had an extra 10 years of Conservative rule because of it.

Why should they try it again here? All it will do is spell disaster for them in 2024/25.

When people hear "tax increases" they immediately begin to worry, even if those increases do not affect themselves. The right wing media, who have a considerable amount of influence on elections, would have an absolute field day if Labour promised any form of tax increases which could even remotely relate to the average reader; non-doms and private schools don't, but income and corporate tax do.

I don't think 2015, 2017 and 2019 elections should necessarily be bunched together and tested as one.

In 2015 Labour were still promising austerity - just less of it. I would argue that by not challenging the Tory narrative on austerity they let the Tories dictate the terms of the debate, and therefore why vote for a pale imitation when you can have the real thing?

In 2017, Labour were firmly anti-austerity, supported tax rises in the wealthy and did actually put on a lot of votes and additional 30 seats. Yes they still lost, but they won 40% of the vote on a very left wing manifesto, with an unpopular leader.

2019 was a total mess. Labour's manifesto was too left wing for sure, but I would argue the biggest factor was Brexit.

I think the wrong message to take from those is that you need to get rid of any progressive policies to win.

Labour promised spending increases, and accompanying tax increases, in all three of those elections. They lost all of them. While I agree that 2019 is largerly due to Brexit, 2017 still stands as a failure even if they did win more seats than in 2015. You can consider 2017 even worse given how appalling the Conservative's campaign was, by all accounts Labour should have won.

There were also the 80s and 90s elections where Labour attempted this strategy and failed. The last time they didn't attempt this strategy was 1997 and they won by a landslide.

Winning the argument doesn't win you elections. I completely agree that taxes should increase and more spending is needed, but the sad reality is that if Labour campaigns on that promise then they will most certainly lose 2024/2025. Most people in the country don't share our viewpoint and will run for the hills at the mere mention of tax increases, no doubt fueled by a heavily biased right wing press.

That's why Labour have to be more cautious and why they can't promise big spending increases. From a campaign perspective it would be a nightmare.

I get what you're saying, and there's a logic to it. But the problem is that in practice it means the Daily Mail gets to decide Labour policy.

And if that's the case, what's the point of the Labour Party?

A by-election is currently taking place in Rutherglen and Hamilton after the SNP MP Margaret Ferrier was suspended from the House of Commons after breaching COVID rules in 2020. The results will be announced late tonight or very early morning tomorrow.

The 2019 result was as follows:

44.2% - SNP
34.5% - Labour
15.0% - Conservative
5.2% - Lib Dem
1.1% - UKIP


(Quoted from Shallowvale as this thread will get more attention).

- My prediction is a win. I don't imagine that SNP voters will be motivated and Tories will transfer votes to kick out the SNP. Current Polling suggests something in the region of a ~50% Lab, ~35% SNP result.

Mid-Bedfordshire and Tamworth are October 19th. Both Tory defenses.

A by-election is currently taking place in Rutherglen and Hamilton after the SNP MP Margaret Ferrier was suspended from the House of Commons after breaching COVID rules in 2020. The results will be announced late tonight or very early morning tomorrow.

The 2019 result was as follows:

44.2% - SNP
34.5% - Labour
15.0% - Conservative
5.2% - Lib Dem
1.1% - UKIP


(Quoted from Shallowvale as this thread will get more attention).

- My prediction is a win. I don't imagine that SNP voters will be motivated and Tories will transfer votes to kick out the SNP. Current Polling suggests something in the region of a ~50% Lab, ~35% SNP result.

Mid-Bedfordshire and Tamworth are October 19th. Both Tory defenses.

While it is a by-election, this result is hugely valuable for Labour ahead of their annual conference. Not only was it a landslide but it was also in Scotland, their once-stronghold. The likelihood of a huge Labour victory in 2024 seems to be peaking.