16-JUL 2023 : LAB: 46% / CON: 26% / LDEM: 11% / REF: 6%

[Danny]

Jul 21, 2023 1:11:56 GMT mandolinist said:

I spent today visiting my mother, an incredibly acute political commentator and supporter of the lib dems. Her take on Labour at the moment is that they lack heart and real belief in anything. "Not the tories" cannot be enough to win the next election, they have to offer something positive, a vision for the future, which offers solutions to the major problems viz climate change and inequality. She is ninety with more working synapses than the whole Conservative Party.

I think she is missing that con are in power on the support of only about 25% of eligible voters. That means you can offend 75% and still win. Lab strategy is by doing nothing except offer a milder more friendly version of con, they will by default get more votes.


Yes she is absolutely correct that if lab could find some real issue attractive to 50% that is a certain win, but what is that issue? They had the choice of becoming the remain party and ducked it. Internally lab are riven on what are good policies, they dont even dare offer a radical program because if they do the party would explode once again as it did under Corbyn. Labour is as badly riven and disunited as are conservatives.  Now that brexit is done, con doesnt have a cause either beyond its traditional policies of redistributing more to the rich.  And those policies by themselves werent enough for con to win back in 2010. Thats why they adopted euroscepticism.

[steve]

Trevor
"Everyone is also entitled to ignore other people for whatever reason (eg trolling, nothing interesting to say, making stuff up, unable to substantiate claims, etc). "

Have you blocked yourself yet?

[neilj]

@crossbat

Come on Batty you're letting the side down we are all waiting for the result of the night...Nunnery ward
No excuses either about them not being counted yet 😀

[Mr Poppy]

Wiki has been updated. In 'Largest swings' then S&F comes in at 23rd (below T&H last year) and S&A in at 30th - just for some historical context

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Numerical_records

[alec]

Not caught up, so this may have been discussed, but I suspect the by election results will strengthen Starmer.

The ULEZ impact in Uxbridge cost Labour the seat. Starmer will, I think, argue that core concerns, rather than more radical 'left' positions are what is going to win, and that cost of living ad other basic issues trumps environmental pledges, trans rights, and other favourite concerns of the left.

While many won't like this, he's probably right.

[crossbat11]

Jul 21, 2023 7:02:25 GMT neilj said:

@crossbat

Come on Batty you're letting the side down we are all waiting for the result of the night...Nunnery ward
No excuses either about them not being counted yet 😀

I was swept away by the drama of the Uxbridge recount, Neil, and took my eye off the ball.

I will bring you news of the Nunnery result as soon as I can.

Unless pjw1961 beats me to it, that is. He usually has more of his people out and about on local council by-election night!

[matt126]

The effect of these by elections will help Labour and particularly the Lib Dems at the general election with tactical voting by those who will just vote for the party with the best chance of winning. The Lib Dems are showing the areas where they are strong and can win this will galvanise ABT voting in these areas squeezing the Lab/ Green vote. Labour are showing they can win in areas like Selby and this will galvanise their vote in these areas with people going to Labour rather than people voting for other parties thinking they dont have much chance here anyway.

[steve]

Let's hope that the Uxbridge result gives Sunakered some confidence, he can call an early election and we can get rid of the fuckers before they do much more damage.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

The result in Uxbridge, if it was a result of decision to extend ULEZ, is extremely depressing for anyone who is serious about taking action on the environment. The willingness of the Tories to exploit the issues rather than come to a consensus on such policies, will in effect take us back about a decade. Labour, who are showing no appetite to taking principled stands, are now likely to backtrack on the issue. Future generations will curse us.

[crossbat11]

As for last night's by-election results, Labour's narrow failure to take Uxbridge will no doubt give Sunak some flimsy cover to distract attention from the Tory disasters in Somerton and Selby. The right wing press will assist him with the spin, rather like they did with Ken Baker, then chair of the Tory Party, who used wins against the head in Westminster Council elections to mask an otherwise disastrous night for the Tories in that set of local council elections. Early 90s think that was.

It was ULEZ wot wun it in Uxbridge, no doubt. Selby was extraordinary and it's very welcoming that we have a 25 year old MP in the Commons now. If only there were many more, but this is a start. Historic by election win for Labour and a gargantuan swing to them too in electoral territory thought a no-go zone for the party. Like Uxbridge, some local factors no doubt, and the seat is likely to return to the Tories next year, but it's just the sort of win to boost self-confidence and belief in an opposition's ranks and to spook incumbents to the core.

Mr Tactical Voter made an appearance in Somerton and Frome by the look of it. Labour vote collapsing and boosting the Lib Dem one. A ridiculous swing there too.

ABT voters coalescing around the horse most likely to get first past the the post. Nightmare scenario for the Tories.

[athena]

I'm a bit surprised at all the posters confidently asserting that it was ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge when presumably most of them have no more local knowledge than I do. Interesting to read RAF 's take.

I also have to admit to being puzzled that ULEZ would be such a big issue. My city introduced one fairly recently and when the warning signs went up I looked up the charging criteria for private cars. From the 'ultra' bit I was rather expecting that only hybrids, electric vehicles and maybe very modern low-emission petrol vehicles would be exempt, so I was pleasantly surprised - from a financial perspective - to discover that my car was very comfortably exempt. In fact petrol vehicles registered from 2006 onwards are usually exempt, diesels from Sept 2015 onwards.

I guess there are a fair few dirty, oldish diesels on the road, but might this be a case of a party succeeding in convincing people that they'll take a financial hit when they won't (the classical example being Osborne's manufactured hoo-ha about inheritance tax)?

---

With my green hat on (which allows me to assert that the principle of reducing air pollution is sound, so people should be prepared to accept some inconvenience, even if I know that in practice they aren't), I can't helping asking whether it would be so very costly to trade in a non-exempt diesel for a petrol vehicle of a similar age, even allowing for a difference in fuel costs? How far would an Uxbridge resident have to go to escape the price depression caused by the ULEZ?

[Danny]

Jul 21, 2023 6:00:20 GMT neilj said:

Looking at the swings on my calculations

Somerton around 29% to Libdems
Selby around 23.7% to Labour
Uxbridge around 6.6% to Labour

Hard to see how the tories will make this a good news story but I'm sure they'll try

I'm not a tory, but I'll have a go.

Looking at the two results con lost, they lost more in percentage share than the winner gained. Ok, that doesn't sound good news, but what it means is even where the challenger was clear, the opposition to con remained split. Libs won 50% of the seats taken from con. Thats terrible stats because of the sample size but it illustrates how the nation does not have any reason to actively support lab except that it is the official opposition. Labour is definitely not loved.  In a general election con will win some seats because the opposition will split much more evenly between lab and lib.

And in the third seat con won. Everyone seems to agree the reason is an unpopular labour policy. R4 suggested this could cost some people £90 per week. I dont know if I miss heard or there was a mistake, but at a cost of £4500 a year, damn straight I would vote against labour. 'its the economy, stupid'. The same issue which won the leave vote. Which is in general losing con votes now.

By now con have lost all credibility. After 15 years in power, its impossible to say vote con for a new deal which will be better than the last lot. So I dont see how in general they can find anything to save them. But this issue of vehicle emission zones could still cost labour quite a lot of similar seats affected by the issue at the coming general election. The London mayoral elction May 24 should be interesting. If we dont have a general election beforehand. Johnson introduce this controvesial emissions tax. The current incumbent just lost this by-election for con by continuing it. Will any candidate then propose scrapping it again? Or will it be gone as an issue, because like brexit the pain has already hit and cannot be undone. The next problem will be the expected ban on new petrol cars after 2030. Who is going to scrap that?

In general these results are exactly the same as the local elections. General losses for con, but where local issues in particular with labour or even libs currrently in power upset voters, then con did a lot better than the average.

Commentary seems to suggest lab were surprised by losing Uxbridge and had been more nervous about Selby.  They clearly over estimate the commitment to them of voters reporting as intending to vote lab, and under estimate how easily a good cause could steal votes back to con.  And thats why a con spokesperson is currently talking about the anti boat people bill. And by end 2014 at the election will still be talking about how the courts have thwarted their attempts to  implement it.  Its set up to create an issue they can use at an election, despite being in power and having failed for 15 years to tackle it.

In the round, even with the uxbridge result, con vote was 20% down. That is fundamentally bad news. The saving grace is no one likes labour much either.  Curtis noted that the labour absolute numerical vote didnt go up, rather con didnt turn out. I'm not convinced its reasonable to assume this is all about con voters abstaining because I think apathy at by elections affects all parties.  But he no doubt has a point once again this isnt about a surge to support lab, but turning away from con. There is the chance of encouraging those people to return to con. And maybe that is precisely the reason for the lab strategy of not scaring the horses.

Its plain though lab have no policy they can unite behind which they believe will be genuinely popular.

[Mr Poppy]

Whilst it is fair to say that the ULEZ was a big factor in U&SR by-election then the repercussions of a few hundred votes are concerning:

Labour blames Ulez for by-election defeat in Boris Johnson’s former seat
www.ealingtimes.co.uk/news/national/23670340.labour-blames-ulez-by-election-defeat-boris-johnsons-former-seat/

ULEZ is a 'blunt tool' with arbitrary boundaries around an arbitrary polity but we do need to tackle climate change and pollution in our cities. The 'better', longer-term, solution is already getting some -ve press but Khan is thinking ahead and doing what needs to be done

Sadiq Khan’s latest plan to replace ULEZ by charging drivers ‘per mile’ will ‘shut London down’
Older vehicles using roads at peak times could be charged more under the scheme
www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/sadiq-khans-latest-plan-replace-27319139

Instead of 'blaming' ULEZ and piling in on CON's attacks against Khan then LAB should be stating the case for reducing car usage with the 'stick' of taxation (either via ULEZ or 'charge per mile') and some 'carrots' of improved public transport and EV charging infrastructure. 

I appreciate the 'outer London' has quite a few Westminster seats but setting up LAB HQ v LAB mayor battles and risking alienating Green votes is perhaps not that smart a move for the sake of a few extra seats in Outer London. Arguing with LAB mayors and alienating Greens is the CON approach and we've been CONned for too long about the need to reduce emissions. If LAB can't make the case for a Greener future then they leave a huge gap for a party that can. 

[Danny]

Jul 21, 2023 6:31:35 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Tells us very little about what will happen in GE'24 as by-elections have a weak track record of 'predictive' powers and they are mid-term.

It tells us con are on target to lose the next election. The general predictive power in a situaion like this is enormous. Sure there could be events which change this between now and an election, but absent that the path is clear.

[athena]

Never mind the specifics of why Lab didn't succeed in taking Uxbridge, perhaps what the party ought to worry about is that its intelligence seems to have been faulty (even cautious pjw1961 was optimistic).

[Danny]

Jul 21, 2023 6:48:06 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Jul 20, 2023 23:08:51 GMT mercian said:

Perhaps Mr Poppy and crossbat11 are alter egos?

Maybe it's an LoC thing but I don't know why some folks continue to struggle with the 'new' features/tech on UKPR2. Unlike UKPR then it is now very easy to ignore someone by hiding their posts and blocking their notifications.

So on a polling website, you are essentially saying if you dont like the way polls are trending for your party, the thing to do is edit out all mentions of opposition parties. Thereby presenting your party always in a clear lead?

You are asking people to ignore posts you do not agree with. Its a fun way to try to prevent your opponents arguments being heard. The ultimate in self delusion too if anyone actually does that.

[Danny]

Jul 21, 2023 6:52:06 GMT steve said:

You know you're getting old when MP's are young enough to be your grandchild.

You know youre getting old when you have sex with people young enough to be your grandchild. Who are of course plainly adults themselves.

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 21, 2023 7:31:03 GMT athena said:

I'm a bit surprised at all the posters confidently asserting that it was ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge when presumably most of them have no more local knowledge than I do. Interesting to read RAF 's take.

I also have to admit to being puzzled that ULEZ would be such a big issue. My city introduced one fairly recently and when the warning signs went up I looked up the charging criteria for private cars. From the 'ultra' bit I was rather expecting that only hybrids, electric vehicles and maybe very modern low-emission petrol vehicles would be exempt, so I was pleasantly surprised - from a financial perspective - to discover that my car was very comfortably exempt*. In fact petrol vehicles registered from 2006 onwards are usually exempt, diesels from Sept 2015 onwards.

I guess there are a fair few dirty, oldish diesels on the road, but might this be a case of a party succeeding in convincing people that they'll take a financial hit when they won't (the classical example being Osborne's manufactured hoo-ha about inheritance tax)?

---

With my green hat on (which allows me to assert that the principle of reducing air pollution is sound, so people should be prepared to accept some inconvenience, even if I know that in practice they aren't), I can't helping asking whether it would be so very costly to trade in a non-exempt diesel for a petrol vehicle of a similar age, even allowing for a difference in fuel costs? How far would an Uxbridge resident have to go to escape the price depression caused by the ULEZ?

see lululemonmustdobetter and my replies.

IMO it is a form of NIMBYism at work. Folks like the idea of 'green' stuff but not if it hits them in the pocket or requires them to change behaviour (eg upgrade car, use public transport or get on yer bike). As well as some of the 'carrots' I suggested then LAB could propose incentives to 'trade-in' the very worst emission cars for a low/zero emission car or even better a bike:

France is offering €4,000 to people who trade their cars for bikes - should every other country do the same?
www.cyclingweekly.com/news/should-more-countries-copy-france-in-offering-euro4000-to-people-who-trade-their-cars-for-bikes

Old (non-exempt) diesels probably aren't worth very much and I'd prefer a policy that pushes for a bigger shift than just to a slightly less emitting car but the overall point is that is very disappointing that the case for 'doing something' about car emissions is likely to take a hit due to a few hundred votes in one mid-term by-election 

I appreciate a lot of people love the convenience of their car but we need to shift that mindset and politicians have a key role to play in that shift - with 'carrots' and 'sticks' to get the masses to change behaviour. 

London is not my polity but I live just outside the arbitrary boundaries. Good to hear that ULEZs are progressing in other parts of UK. 👍

* For a list of the criteria for London then as per the highlighted section then, yes, a lot of vehicles are exempt. Although the screw will likely be tightened over time (as it should be). 
tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ways-to-meet-the-standard

[alec]

lululemonmustdobetter - "The result in Uxbridge, if it was a result of decision to extend ULEZ, is extremely depressing for anyone who is serious about taking action on the environment. The willingness of the Tories to exploit the issues rather than come to a consensus on such policies, will in effect take us back about a decade. Labour, who are showing no appetite to taking principled stands, are now likely to backtrack on the issue. Future generations will curse us."

I don't agree. Or at least, not entirely.

This is very depressing for anyone serious about taking action on the climate without combining such measures with linked reforms around issues of equity and fairness, but for those of us who see environment as inextricably linked to economic and social justice, in many ways it's quite good news.

The classic right wing way to addressing climate & environmental concerns is to pass something like an emissions law, make sure big business has the products to sell that can help people meet the new regulations, and then expect consumers to pay up for the privilege of having clean air. Within that calculation comes the simple observation that the well off, who are generally less affected by environmental issues anyway, will be able to make the switch, while the poor pay whatever penalties are included as incentives.

ULEZ extension was a classic example. Without a scrappage scheme, poorer voters faced a hammer blow. I', not blaming Labour so much here - this is an issue where devolved powers grind up against national policy, and central and regional government needed to work together and didn't. With a proper support package, I doubt this would have been such an issue, but the lesson is that environmental gains must be made in the context of wholesale economic and social justice.

I think that's a positive lesson to learn.

[alec]

athena - my thoughts too. This probably comes back to the below the surface online targeting of voters that did so much damage to the Lib Dems in 2015 and Labour in 2019.

[crossbat11]

athena

You're right to say that none of us know for sure all the reasons for the markedly lower swing to Labour in Uxbridge than in Selby, but reading reports from those covering that by-election, and those campaigning in it too, the unpopularity of the ULEZ extension into parts of the constituency, and it being a policy of the Labour London Mayor, did cause problems for the party.

I think you're sort of accepting that too, aren't you, by suggesting that the misrepresentation of the policy, and the misplaced fears generated, became the political problem for Labour as opposed to the actual ULEZ policy itself?

Put another way, Labour would probably have achieved a sufficient sized swing to take Uxbridge had the ULEZ issue, as misunderstood as it no doubt was, not arisen.

Unless you have other insights, of course.

P.S I support ULEZ initiatives, by the way, wherever they occur, despite wandering inadvertently twice into their clutches in my polluting pre-2014 diesel engine powered Volvo V70. Blissfully unaware, I collected a non-payment fine of £90 both times. The second time was on my way to the FA Cup final. A satnav malfunction! I was travelling to a tube station outside the zones and took a wrong turn. A 200m incursion, unnoticed by the distracted driver. Didn't see the signs. My fault though. Took it on the chin.

[Danny]

Jul 21, 2023 7:03:59 GMT alec said:

Not caught up, so this may have been discussed, but I suspect the by election results will strengthen Starmer.

The ULEZ impact in Uxbridge cost Labour the seat. Starmer will, I think, argue that core concerns, rather than more radical 'left' positions are what is going to win, and that cost of living ad other basic issues trumps environmental pledges, trans rights, and other favourite concerns of the left.

While many won't like this, he's probably right.

We have high energy prices now not becaue of a war in Ukraine, but because of international policy to end the use of fossil fuels. Accompanied by general failure by many governments, noteably the conservative Uk one, to ensure adequate provision of alternatives.  This should not have happened and need not have happened. Con in general and lab in Uxbridge specifically, are suffering from failing to manage decarbonsation effectively. This cannot be separated from cost of living because the green policy caused the cost of living crisis.  The unstated choice by governments to force up energy costs and use that to leverage the private sector  implementing renewables  is not an accident, but deliberate intended policy. It just got a bit out of control. Going green actually needn't be expensive, but governments have made it so.

[johntel]

Jul 20, 2023 21:13:27 GMT @fecklessmiser said:

Jul 20, 2023 20:35:14 GMT johntel said:

Odd, why on earth would they prefer politics to cricket?

1/ They don’t understand the rules or why dogs can’t play if they could be bothered.

2/ They don’t understand why the players don’t catch the ball with their teeth.

3/ It gets very boring.

You could say the same about 1/ and 3/ for politics, so I think 2/ must be the answer. Maybe if the powers-that-be introduced a rule like a catch with the teeth getting both the batters out would make the game more appealing to dogs?

[Danny]

Jul 21, 2023 7:17:58 GMT matt126 said:

The effect of these by elections will help Labour and particularly the Lib Dems at the general election with tactical voting by those who will just vote for the party with the best chance of winning. The Lib Dems are showing the areas where they are strong and can win this will galvanise ABT voting in these areas squeezing the Lab/ Green vote. Labour are showing they can win in areas like Selby and this will galvanise their vote in these areas with people going to Labour rather than people voting for other parties thinking they dont have much chance here anyway.

On the whole though libs will win seats which would otherwise have gone to labour at a time the government is generally disliked. The two party grip on power is weakend by both being detested at once.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Jul 21, 2023 7:31:03 GMT athena said:

I'm a bit surprised at all the posters confidently asserting that it was ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge when presumably most of them have no more local knowledge than I do. Interesting to read RAF 's take.

I also have to admit to being puzzled that ULEZ would be such a big issue. My city introduced one fairly recently and when the warning signs went up I looked up the charging criteria for private cars. From the 'ultra' bit I was rather expecting that only hybrids, electric vehicles and maybe very modern low-emission petrol vehicles would be exempt, so I was pleasantly surprised - from a financial perspective - to discover that my car was very comfortably exempt. In fact petrol vehicles registered from 2006 onwards are usually exempt, diesels from Sept 2015 onwards.

I guess there are a fair few dirty, oldish diesels on the road, but might this be a case of a party succeeding in convincing people that they'll take a financial hit when they won't (the classical example being Osborne's manufactured hoo-ha about inheritance tax)?

---

With my green hat on (which allows me to assert that the principle of reducing air pollution is sound, so people should be prepared to accept some inconvenience, even if I know that in practice they aren't), I can't helping asking whether it would be so very costly to trade in a non-exempt diesel for a petrol vehicle of a similar age, even allowing for a difference in fuel costs? How far would an Uxbridge resident have to go to escape the price depression caused by the ULEZ?

Hi athena, I live in outer London, and it is very much an issue atm, largely due to the fact the Tories are exploiting it rather than supporting it. Not all Tories are happy with this, but opposition to ULEZ is going to be a centre plank of the Tory campaign in the Mayoral election next year. 

[norfolkandgood]

Jul 20, 2023 21:00:03 GMT graham said:

Jul 20, 2023 19:53:52 GMT shevii said:

I think it was 512th on Labour's target list?  No sign of anything other than 3 Tory losses tonight from the twitter vibes.  Sometimes you do get a bit of gossip around this time that things may be closer than anticipated.

I would also say that on the Anthony article linked earlier- he might be right in one respect about "not telling us anything" about a General Election and I imagine Selby will return to Tory, probably Frome as well, but it does tell us the determination to turn out, albeit with lower turnouts than General Elections.  Compared to earlier in this parliament where Labour were underperforming in by elections and locals, they are definitely more in line with opinion polls now I think.

Boundary changes in Selby will be helpful for Labour - and the predecessor seat was Labour - held 1997 - 2010.  Moreover, when a seat changes hands at by elections following a big swing the winning party usually enjoys a 'bounce' at the subsequent GE. Examples of the latter are - Copeland in  early2017 and retained at GE a few months later - the Tory gains at Crewe & Nantwich and Norwich North in 2008 and 2009 respectively saw well above average swings  to the Tories at the 2010 GE. Had there not been a by election at Copeland in February 2017, it is likely Labour would have held the seat at the GE.

While I agree with your cooments on by election bounce, I don't think that Labour would ever have won Copeland under Corbyn due to the nuclear industry's importance to Cumbria.

[crossbat11]

I'm still waiting for Carfrew to confirm the details of the Selby and Ainsty by-election result. We got Somerton quite quickly, and Uxbridge very quickly

Come on Carfers, I'm on tenterhooks.

🤔🤣

[Danny]

Jul 21, 2023 7:27:36 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

The result in Uxbridge, if it was a result of decision to extend ULEZ, is extremely depressing for anyone who is serious about taking action on the environment. The willingness of the Tories to exploit the issues rather than come to a consensus on such policies, will in effect take us back about a decade. Labour, who are showing no appetite to taking principled stands, are now likely to backtrack on the issue. Future generations will curse us.

The crunch point was 2010, after which con cancelled various schemes to go green. Presumably in contrast as this became more urgent, lab would have facilitated more. And then its less likley anyone would have been hit by sudden impacts, as per the issue in Uxbridge or the huge energy price rises of the last couple of years.

Bascially labour was using carrot and con chose stick. Stick like huge hikes in electricity prices now which simply would have been less had lab been in power, because we would have had more renewables generation in place by now.

That ought to be the story labour is telling. Yet instead it is simply going along with con policies of using market forces, ie high costs to consumers, to make the change.  On balance, I'm on the side of someone's mum above, who argued labour needs a cause. But they are scared voters hate them too.

[steve]

Danny
"You know youre getting old when you have sex with people young enough to be your grandchild. Who are of course plainly adults themselves."

Is there something you wanted to share with us?

[Danny]

Jul 21, 2023 7:28:03 GMT crossbat11 said:

ABT voters coalescing around the horse most likely to get first past the the post. Nightmare scenario for the Tories.

How to describe it for labour? Bad dream rather than nightmare, or just a slightly less bad nightmare?

Cameron's destruction of the libs in 2010 was genius, but they have arisen from the dead.