The results are in and the Inverclyde by-election will go down in the history books as a rather pedestrian victory for Labour. No political earthquakes and similarly no shooting of the Nationalist fox. Â The SNP may have reduced the late David Cairns’ majority from 14,416 to 5,538 but the reality is that they weren’t really that close to winning here.
And, in politics, a win is a win regardless of the margin of victory. I’m sure Bill Kidd and his single digit majority would agree there, so the back and forth between Labour and the SNP over how good or bad this victory may or may not have been, while inevitable, is pretty redundant.
That said, it did seem more than a little bit cheeky of Labour MPs to use the ~500 Holyrood majority as a way to suggest that this was a great night for them. For me, that only served to highlight the difference in Labour’s prospects between Holyrood and Westminster and undermined any message they were trying to send to the Westminster Parliament. Are they glad they won because there is a burning desire to change reserved policy on behalf of Scotland or are they just chuffed to have a rare chance to poke Salmond in the eye? It’s really not all that clear.
There is little to read into the results for the Conservatives, Lib Dems and UKIP. The latter two parties lost their deposits which is never ideal, but in a two-horse race by-election that risk will have been factored in early.
So it is back to business as usual with this by-election now out of the way but, with the current debate at Westminster being issues that are largely devolved, what Iain Mackenzie MP and his 58 Scottish colleagues will be working on is as clear as the mud on the banks of Inverclyde.
#1 by Malc on July 1, 2011 - 9:48 am
I may be a cynic, or I may just have a particularly craven way of looking at this… but isn’t this the best possible result for the SNP?
They’ve reduced a 14,000 majority to 5,000 in a Westminster by-election where the sophisticated electorate recognise the institutional advantage that Labour hold over the SNP. I’m not in the business of spinning for the SNP, but polling over 9,000 votes under those circumstances isn’t bad.
But my point is more about the consequences. If the Nats had won, Labour would have done some serious soul-searching and fixed much more of their underlying problems. Since they won, they are less likely to see such an issue, more likely to see this as the “normal way of things” being restored… and thus their review might not fundamentally change anything.
Just me?
#2 by Aidan Skinner on July 1, 2011 - 10:49 am
“institutional advantage” ? In what was essentially a straight two horse race? Eh?
Both sides poured everything they could into the seat, the Lib Dem vote evaporated entirely (and I feel very sorry for Ms Bridger being sacraficed like that) and there was some definite shifting of the Labour vote to the SNP which wasn’t entirely made up for by the Lib Dems we won – hence only a 2% drop in vote share.
There’s absolutely no cause for complacency after this result.
#3 by Malc on July 1, 2011 - 11:02 am
Institutional advantage in that its a Westminster election. The SNP have the advantage in the Holyrood elections. But don’t take my word for it – this is an Alan Trench concept.
But you accept my main point – there shouldn’t be complacency. But there likely will be – hence a good (if not great) result for the SNP.
#4 by Aidan Skinner on July 1, 2011 - 11:51 am
Not one I’m familiar with, google isn’t helping either – got a reference? (I suspect my OU politics courses will be… light… on Scotland when I get there).
There shouldn’t be complacency, and I’m not sure if it’s likely there will be – nobody I talked to while out campaigning was under any illusions. We won but we won due to a huge amount of hard work. Anything other than the most superficial reading of the result surely gives continuing cause for concern?
#5 by Malc on July 1, 2011 - 3:54 pm
Its an idea he coined in the “State of the Nations” series he edited. I think the 2008 version is where he mentions Holyrood being an institutional advantage for the Nats – I’ve just turned it around to say that they are at an institutional disadvantage at UK level elections, which is, I think, fair comment.
#6 by Colin on July 1, 2011 - 12:48 pm
I agree, Malc. I often thought that Glasgow East was something of a blessing in disguise for Labour. It woke them up to the fact that they were in serious shit, which they’d never truly realised before. Result: they brought in Murphy, got their postal vote operation sorted out, and generally overhauled their Westminster machine.
Of course, the successes which resulted made them complacent again by the time of the Holyrood elections. So it’s a bit of a cycle. When Labour feels cornered, they’re still arguably the most formidable campaigning outfit in the country.
#7 by alex buchan on July 1, 2011 - 1:37 pm
I agree. I think Labour’s main problem at the moment is that they are not seen as an effective opposition to the Tory/LibDem coalition. Given that Miliband’s approval ratings are on the floor then part of the reason has to be his leadership. A defeat at this by-election would have added pressure for him to step down and the possibility of a new start under a different leader. That is less likely now as a result of this vote.
#8 by Scottish republic on July 5, 2011 - 6:34 pm
Actually, I think you’re spot on.
Ed Milliband is still the leader
and he’s forgettable
and he’s selling out his trade union base
and he’s criticising the strikers
and he fancied Margaret Thatcher (well, fancied is a bit strong but greatly admired her).
and… more to follow without doubt.
The Labourites just scored a wee victory for right-wing politics in Scotland.
Jobs, jobs, jobs, thirteen years and they didn’t deliver them, they won’t deliver anything as a right-wing minority who chose to be the opposition rather than dirty their Brit nat hands in the ‘rainbow coalition’.
#9 by Indy on July 1, 2011 - 9:50 am
I have to say the thing that has really struck me about the post-match analysis is the constant harping by both Labour and the Tories about the fact that Alex Salmond went to Inverclyde no less than SEVEN TIMES and still the SNP lost. It has been really quite striking.
Two things occur to me as a result of that. One, that they have built Alex up into some kind of super being, as though the fact that he was there SEVEN TIMES should have meant an automatic victory and it is really quite remarkable that they managed to overcome his superpowers and win.
And secondly it says something about peoples attitude towards leadership. It’s almost as though they think it was a failure of judgement for Alex to go so often to a by-election when we ended up losing, as though he should avoid being in any situation where you can lose in case he is tarnished with the odour of failure.
That is very much in contradiction with my understanding of leadership. To me, leaders lead by example – and I would have been a tad annoyed if |Alex had been sending me emails saying get yourself down to Inverclyde but by the way I am not going in case we lose and it makes me look bad! (For the record I was there one more time than SEVEN TIMES but somehow we still managed to lose).
But hey ho, Labour ran a good campaign so full credit to them for winning. And now if you will excuse me I am off to join the rest of our members in the shed where we are fashioning some new wheels for our bandwagon….
#10 by jim jepps on July 1, 2011 - 10:15 am
What about the Lib Dem vote though? Last time they got over 5,000 votes at 13.3% this time they recieved 627 votes at 2.2%
Seems note worthy to me.
The other thing I noticed was that the Tories were the only party to actually run the same candidate from last year. It does annoy me that so many Parliamentary election candidates are flyby nights rather than people who are commited to winning the constituency for their party.
#11 by Jeff on July 1, 2011 - 10:57 am
Noteworthy if it was a standalone event Jim but, after the Holyrood election, it’s not a surprise, particularly given this was a by-election where 3rd place and lower typically have a depressed voteshare.
The obvious LD response would be – ‘at least we fielded a candidate and gave the voters an option’. The LDs got 627 more votes than the Greens did, and UKIP 228 more for that matter.
#12 by jim jepps on July 1, 2011 - 11:06 am
I think getting a sixth of the previous vote share is pretty significant when you consider the Lib Dems have a reputation for having a very strong by election machine.
I don’t think the ‘at least we fielded a candidate’ really holds in an area where they had one in eight votes and no have one in fifty.
Anyway, I’m more interested in my other point about why parties didn’t field consistent candidates from last year. Candidates who had professed a love for the area are suddenly nowhere to be seen
#13 by Jeff on July 1, 2011 - 11:29 am
I just think it’s a bit off to dance on another party’s well-known troubles when your own party (having you down as an honorary GPS member) didn’t even put anyone forward. If you beat another party, you should be classy enough to win in style and not badmouth (too much) those that came in behind you. If you don’t beat certain other parties, then you should focus on your own problems rather than theirs. That’s (usually) my philosophy anyway.
I don’t think there’s too much to read into the change of candidates, it happens all the time for all parties and for a whole host of reasons. Play the ball not the man etc.
And finally, the Lib Dems won 1 in 50 votes. Accurate Sir. What’s your point?
#14 by jim jepps on July 1, 2011 - 11:37 am
If we’re doing political analysis it’s worth noting – I didn’t do any dancing. If I did please point it out to me. There’s no hint of gloating in what I’ve said.
My point is that going from one in eight to one in fifty votes is an extremely significant drop that is not explained by the two horse race theory.
I personally don’t think the green party should stand in by-elections where we have not done a significant amount of work because I’m no fan of paper candidates in areas where we are weak. That’s because we are a small party that doesn’t have the money to waste on pointless by-elections when we have areas where we can do well and we should focus on those – I’m under no illusions that the Greens are able to ignore those realities.
#15 by Jeff on July 1, 2011 - 11:44 am
“My point is that going from one in eight to one in fifty votes is an extremely significant drop that is not explained by the two horse race theory.”
Sure it is, partly at least. The 1 in 8 was during a General Election where people tend to vote less tactically and more in favour of the party they wish to see win seats at a UK level. The 1 in 50 was at a by-election that was always ever going to be Labour vs SNP and, even then, was really only ever going to be a Labour win.
The other obvious reason for the Lib Dems moving from 1 in 8 to 1 in 50 is that they are in a coalition with the Tories and that is unpopular in Scotland. That is now old news and this by-election doesn’t shed any new light on that situation.
I didn’t say you were gloating but I still believe that your choosing to focus on 4th placed Lib Dems is “dancing on another party’s well known troublesâ€, particularly as your chosen political analysis doesn’t seem to come with any conclusions or inferences attached which leads me back to my earlier question, what’s your point?
#16 by jim jepps on July 1, 2011 - 11:52 am
No it isn’t gloating. It’s part of the political analysis that hadn’t been touched upon yet in this thread, the fact i didn’t bother to make any point that had already been made doesn’t mean I’m focusing on the LDs only that you’ve chosen to ignore them. Although you are ignoring the other point I’ve made.
The Tory vote dipped slightly but essentially held up even though they were not one of the two horses, what happened to the LD’s was significantly different to this and the fact that their vote share continues to drop hard has wide implications for Scottish politics with the local elections fast approaching.
This is a perfectly reasonable point to make and does not contain even a glimmer of dancing. Clearly you think it’s not a legitimate topic of discussion so I’ll go away now.
#17 by James on July 1, 2011 - 11:55 am
Jim, I’m with you. I reckon it’s pretty relevant.
#18 by Jeff on July 1, 2011 - 11:58 am
Relevant in what way? As a further example of the fall from grace of the Scottish Lib Dems? Naturally, but, as I said before, that’s old news and not really worth focussing on.
#19 by Alec Macph on July 1, 2011 - 10:24 am
Why did he go SEVEN TIMES if he didn’t think the Party had a chance?
~alec
#20 by Indy on July 1, 2011 - 1:50 pm
Lol he went there SEVEN TIMES because it was a blooming by-election and he is the party leader.
#21 by Jeff on July 1, 2011 - 1:56 pm
I’m definitely with Indy here; it’s quite preposterous to try to have a go at Salmond in any way for leading from the front in terms of campaigning for by-elections.
The SNP is in a remarkable position where it can fight to win in any constituency in Scotland. Sure, it won’t win all of the contests, past or present, but how that is a bad thing for the Nats is beyond me.
#22 by Christine on July 1, 2011 - 10:47 am
The Guardian is certainly running with the idea that the SNP lost ‘despite’ the 7 visits by Alex Salmond. Obviously there is no direct comparison to make with Labour as they aren’t sure who their leader is (in Scotland) so we had a parade of Prescott, Balls, Milliband and others. If the SNP had won, would it mean they were all disgraced?
There is no shame for the SNP here, they achieved a good proportion of the vote for a Westminster by-election. The more Labour try to spin it as a catastrophe for the SNP, the more it seems that they wanted to win it to ‘stick it to Alex et al’ rather than becuase they genuinely have something to offer the people of Inverclyde.
I really hope for the people of Inverclyde that the new Labour MP has more to offer than what we saw during his campaign and ‘victory speech’. Otherwise it will be another Labour stronghold where nothing ever changes for the people who live there. The SNP have the next five years to demonstrate what they can achieve for Scotland and hopefully this will pay off in future elections.
#23 by Chris on July 1, 2011 - 10:48 am
I think there will be a lot of relief from Labour because it indicates that the underlying rules haven’t changed: the Holyrood result, as hoped, was a reflection on the competence of the parties and leaders rather than a shift in the landscape towards Independence.
I think Salmond was foolish to spend so much time there as he is supposed to look like he is running the country. I expect he was gambling on claiming the credit for a ‘shock’ win or at least something close.
However it does show that Salmond is right to delay a referendum or even offer a referndum on something that isn’t really independence at all. I wonder how long he will be able to string out his party on this one. There’s a touch of Blair in him.
Like the first SNP wave in the 70s, the quality control of candidates for seats they did not expect to win brings out the bampot factor. The damage from the Paisley MSPs remarks really didn’t help.
#24 by Chris on July 1, 2011 - 11:07 am
Christine – there was talk of whether Miliband could survive a Labour defeat- Tosh really as Labour don’t do regicide.
The right really wanted Labour to lose as it helps the Tories in UK terms if Labour is undermined badly.
But as Jeff says the world keeps turning, May’s result looks more like a vote of confidence in a competent administration than a clamour for independence.
#25 by Doktorb on July 1, 2011 - 11:50 am
It certainly was “business as usual”, not surprising for an election which occurred only 6 weeks after the Holyrood elections, and 13 months after the Westminster vote. For Labour to hold on was never out of reach. It’s Labour heartlands, with most opposition parties playing catch-up from historically low starting points.
Two observations I make from the figures – the LibDem vote collapse is very worrying for them (I am a card carrying member). As commentators never tire of saying, voters in Scotland have learned to tell the difference between Holywood and Westminster elections in a manner that makes a LibDem vote fall the more significant. For Labour to collapse at Holyrood whilst keeping afloat in Westminster is worthy of analysis indeed; for the LibDems to fall so far in both should get the party higher-ups very worried indeed. Just how more distinctive a party message can the Scottish party give?
Secondly – it’s worth noting the UKIP vote. I cannot see how UKIP are going to work any kind of magic north of the border. They seem an utter irrelevance, and this result is another piece of evidence for that.
#26 by CassiusClaymore on July 1, 2011 - 1:31 pm
As George Kerevan correctly observed on Newsnight, the constituency isn’t aspirational enough for the SNP message of positivity and self-belief to prevail – yet.
The good news is that Labour are now entirely dependent on their voters’ fear, pessimism, ignorance, inertia and low self-esteem. It terrifies Labour that this might ever change. But it will.
Truly alarming result for the LibDems. They’d better hope that the coalition goes full term – if there was a GE now, they’d be wiped out in Scotland. Is it time for Charlie and Ming to cross the floor yet?
CC
#27 by Jeff on July 1, 2011 - 1:53 pm
I don’t know, I think the suggestion that seats in which a party loses contains constituents that aren’t “aspirational enough” is really potentially a quite odious remark. I’m all for telling things straight but there’s an aloof disregard for fellow Scots at play there that even I* am quite uncomfortable with.
(I’m not above a bit of aloofness and down-the-nose-looking from time to time, I freely admit it)
Is the SNP more aspirational or is it just promising more than it can deliver? (witness the combustion of the 2020 100% renewable pledge today, given the extension of nuclear facilities into the late 2020s)
#28 by Rev. S. Campbell on July 1, 2011 - 2:24 pm
Kerevan got a terrible kicking last night for simply telling the truth. All the media features noted how the constituency was being abandoned by young people or anyone with any qualifications as they searched for jobs that simply didn’t exist in Inverclyde, and such a situation is surely just about as close to a diametric opposite of “aspirational” as it’s possible to get.
It might not be nice to hear, and it might not be a vote-winner, but it very much seems to be true. An aspirational community is one where people stay and fight to improve things because they think it’s an achievable goal, not one where everyone with shoe-leather is hotfooting it out of town for better opportunities.
“(witness the combustion of the 2020 100% renewable pledge today, given the extension of nuclear facilities into the late 2020s)”
Um, that’s hardly a combustion of anything. As I’m sure you well know, “100% renewables” never meant “all-renewable energy and nothing else”. It means “renewables producing enough energy to theoretically meet all of Scotland’s needs, although there will in fact also be other sources for a whole host of reasons, and any surplus will be exported”.
#29 by Indy on July 1, 2011 - 3:19 pm
I know exactly what he meant when he said it is like Scotland in the 1970s. Not all of the constituency is like that by any means – and there are aspirational voters aplenty. But in some bits of Greenock and Port Glasgw you do feel you have fallen through a time tunnel to the late 70s/early 80s. It still feels like Thatcher is around. Quite weird in fact.
#30 by William Brown on July 1, 2011 - 2:47 pm
20 Christine
According to that SNP supporting paper The Scotsman (well only for a day before the May election) it was a Labour “triumph”!
#31 by Angus McLellan on July 1, 2011 - 3:37 pm
No surprise on the winner, but a better result – a few thousand more votes – for Labour than I had expected. That may have a lot to do with the solid turnout. If so, going to the polls early was clearly the right decision, so there should be a shiny gold star in the post for whoever ultimately made that call. The SNP and Tories can be satisified, more or less. There’s not even the faintest hint of good news for the Lib Dems here though.
And on that note, I’d be careful about making snap judgements on where the Lib Dem vote went. We already know that the May result was the result of a more complex switch in voting than was first assumed. Perhaps the turnout among non-Lib Dem voters was even higher than the overall figure suggests and any switching was from Labour to SNP while most former Lib Dem supports stayed home? That can only be a guess and we may never know what really happened.
Ultimately a by-election was never going to tell us very much. And it was never going to result in Ed Miliband losing his job. Labour just don’t do regicide as has been said many times. We’ll need to wait until next May to learn anything new. And whatever happens, Ed won’t lose his job over that either.
Is there a conventional wisdom yet as to whether local elections are genuinely local, or “Scottish”, or “British”, in terms of voting patterns? And is anyone aware of any studies which, rather than simply showing that there are different “Scottish” and “British” elections, try to explain and model why this should be the case?
#32 by CassiusClaymore on July 1, 2011 - 4:05 pm
I don’t follow you Jeff. I’m saying that Scots are becoming more aspirational, which is bad for Labour. In some areas of Scotland, however, there is a dearth of aspiration.
I don’t see what’s ‘odious’ about saying that. It’s patently true. Frankly it’s pretty offensive to suggest that saying this indicates a disregard for my fellow Scots. It’s much more insulting to pretend that everything’s OK.
I don’t blame the people. I blame the party which has presided over the decline of these areas for the past 60 years, and for which aspiration is anathema. Labour.
CC
#33 by GMcM on July 1, 2011 - 4:31 pm
The lack of respect being shown to the electorate on here by some is staggering. As a Labour Party member I am constantly reading online that we must accept the will of the electorate and I do. We lost in May because we couldn’t convince the electorate that the true party of the aspirational is Labour.
The same medicine does not appear to go down so easily for some on this site when the electorate reject the SNP.
It’s obvious, the electorate must be thick, blind to the advantages of el Presidente and his ilk and are a lost cause.
As a Labour man I feel our message can be presented in a way that will appeal to all. The SNP appear to say they want people to gradually just wander over to their side rather than go out and convince people that they are the best option.
If you lose an election it is because you deserve to lose, not because the electorate are _______ (insert put down)
#34 by Indy on July 1, 2011 - 4:57 pm
Hallo? As far as I am aware I am the only nat here who was at Inverclyde on a regular basis and I said you guys ran a good campaign.
What folks are talking about perhaps are the areas of Inverclyde which are frankly a disgrace. It is not just the lack of jobs, it’s a level of physical neglect that is palpable. Pavements that are falling to bits, steps that are crumbling, dog dirt all over the place, very few playparks or facilities for children, a few scattered convenience shops but very little in the way of fresh fruit and veg available, a tangible sense of depression and neglect. If you want to deny those areas exist go right ahead but you are kidding no-one – at least you are not kidding anyone who was there..
Pingback: Inverclyde’s importance
#35 by Chris on July 1, 2011 - 5:36 pm
I found Kerevan’s remarks quite upsetting. For some people Scotland begins at Holyrood Place and ends in Nicolson Square.
These same people came within 500 votes of voting SNP last month and no doubt would be considered part of the bletheratti’s Scottish Spring had they done so. This was a place with a Libdem council recently.
There are depressing parts of Greenick just like in every post-industrial town from Kilmarnock to Kelty. I don’t see what is special about Greenock maybe we should ask IBM or Amazon who seem happy to invest there.
#36 by Anonymous on July 3, 2011 - 12:51 am
And did you not hear Alf Young’s reply? Economic and, in particular, demographic decline has hit Greenock and Inverclyde harder than any other area in the United Kingdom. The decline of industry in the twentieth century, particularly post-war, means that Greenock, once one of the most important ports in the world, is now left with no major middle class employer following the gradual exit of IBM. There is only a smattering of call centres in terms of large private sector employment. An enormous sense of cultural depression hangs over the town as a consequence, and there is a quite justifiable culture of emigration among the young and capable.
The saddest thing about all of this is that voters who were once represented by the late David Cairns, who, while not perfect, was undeniably capable and intelligent, have now been posed a choice between Anne McLaughlin, so low on the list as to essentially have been forced out of Holyrood by her own party (witness her response to the aircraft carrier question on Politics Now, and her inappropriately gleeful demeanour in discovering council redundancies), and the hapless and quite transparently dimwitted Iain McKenzie. This is an area that needs exceptional people fighting its corner, and he is not one of them.
#37 by Indy on July 4, 2011 - 10:10 am
It is not the whole constituency – but there are parts of it that are worse than comparable places. Like Glasgow was in the 80s. Unless people are willing to be honest about how badly neglected some areas are nothing will change.
#38 by Indy on July 4, 2011 - 11:08 am
Incidentally George Kerevan was brought up in Drumchapel so it’s not as if he is some plummy toff who has never strayed outside the higher echelons of Edinburgh.
The underlying point is that for George Kerevan’s generation growing up in Drumchapel did not constitute a barrier to social mobility.
This is the paradox. The Labour Party, more than anyone else, created the social mobility that allowed youngsters from the poorest areas to escape poverty and aspire to the heights of being political editor of the Scotsman (lol) in the 50s and 60s and to some extent the 70s.
But somehow Labour has lost that vision and has almost become the defenders of poverty. That may be a bit over the top but it’s certainly the way they come over sometimes, as though it is wrong to say that people deserve better than to be living in a dump with no prospects. They would rather attack the person who is honest enough to say that than to do anything about it.
#39 by An Duine Gruamach on July 1, 2011 - 9:06 pm
Does anybody know when we last had a Westminster by-election in Scotland that was not in a (strongly) Labour seat? Inverclyde, Glasgow North East (granted that was the speaker), Glenrothes, Glasgow East, Dunfermline West, Livingston… what was before Livingston?
#40 by CassiusClaymore on July 1, 2011 - 9:08 pm
Aye. And who’s run Kilmarnock and Kelty for the past 60 years?
Thankfully I think we’re entering an era where our self-confidence is returning, and people are increasingly disdainful of Labour’s dismal message.
They can celebrate last night all they like. But nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.
CC