Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tonitrus]

This image makes one wonder how one could take UK elections seriously, but...I live in America. 

[Sheilbh]

Burnham comfortably wins the by-election with a near 10,000 vote majority, perhaps in part due to massive anti-reform  tactical voting which saw the Greens and Lib-Dems together getting less than 500 votes. And Restore UK gobbling up a significant 3,000 voters who might otherwise have gone to Reform UK, may that 20% chomping of the far-right vote continue.

Constituency polling is very difficult but that's a better result for Burnham than any of the polls. To put it in context at the local elections this area went 51% for Reform, with Labour on 25%. In the most recent MRP analysis, Labour were expected to be on about 20% if there was a general election tomorrow.

There's a bit of a squeeze but this area isn't really Lib Dem or Green territory. Since 2015 (so post-coalition) the Lib Dems bob around 1,500-2,000 votes and the Greens around 1,000 (they haven't even been able to stand a candidate in all elections). Both Lib Dems and Greens typically lose their deposit here. So it'll be a factor but not that significant.

The Tories only got some 950 votes, did even some of their traditional voters go with Burnham in order to spoil Reforms chances?

Yes - the polls are pretty consistent on that. Tory voters and Reform voters are quite different and there's a fairly big chunk of Tory voters who would prefer to work with parties to the left than the right.

In this case there is the unique bonus of "ditch Starmer, vote Labour" which will also appeal to a fair chunk of Tory (and, indeed, all voters).

Again struck at just how poor Reform's expectations management is given that they were saying they thought they'd maybe lost by about 2,500. In part I think there's a side of this which is just inexperience/lack of institutional memory compared to the established parties - but also it is a pattern with Reform and I slightly wonder if they're just a bit high on their own supply when the underlying picture looks more challenging than they seem to assume. There is a large anti-Reform vote. Their support has plateaued and been trending down recently. They've had a run of picking duffers as candidates.

Also second highest turnout in a byelection this century.

Also the Tories won in Aberdeen South. They got almost 50% of the vote and a majority of about 6,000 over the SNP who got just under 30%. Labour vote collapsed because of the national picture - but also, I suspect, some unionist tactical voting which is quite common in Scotland now (with the exception of Reform). But a 25% swing in a byelection in Scotland (albeit Aberdeenshire) and the first byelection victory for the Scottish Tories in 60 years is something they'll be happy about.

Arbroath and Broughty Ferry a bi less interesting - SNP held with a small 5% swing. the big story here is Labour collapsing from second to fourth (behind Reform who are up to second, and the Tories).

I've said before - and this might change now - but I think a broad anti-Reform coalition winning and the Tories doing better than expected and winning the fight on the right are underpriced in my view.

[Sheilbh]

This image makes one wonder how one could take UK elections seriously, but...I live in America. 

I think it's one of the better features of our elections. It's pretty easy to get on the ballot. Everyone, from the Prime Minister down, has to gather in a sports hall or community centre of council workers who've counted the votes and party activists. The future PM or cabinet minister is at the same level as the crank or the eccentric or Count Binface. And winners and losers have to share a stage while the results are announced. I think within those practices are things that are positive a democratic culture.

[HVC]

I've already said if it wasn't for trump the uk would be the one the world would be laughing at

[Valmy]

And if Burnham wins - which is very much an if

He crushed by over 20% 

Was it actually expected to be close?

[Sheilbh]

He crushed by over 20% 

Was it actually expected to be close?

It was in Reform's top 25 target seats for the next election. At the local elections last month, Reform won over 50% of the vote in this area. On the latest MRP, Labour were on 20%.

When it was clear this would be the seat Burnham could run in I think a lot of London reporters were very doubtful as it would be a very big ask. I thought he would because he has a very strong personal vote and has been a good mayor. But it is better than I expected. Without Burnham this would have been an open goal for Reform.

I'd add that Reform now have a habit of underperforming (in some cases even while winning). Whenever the stakes are high they underperform to the polls: Caerphilly, Gorton, Hamilton, the Senedd, Runcorn and now here. Partly the anti-Reform tactical vote, but also bad candidates and I think wider issues. They really need to do a post-mortem.

[Richard Hakluyt]

A bit of good news there, at least in by-elections there does seem to be an anti-Reform coalition in effect.

A pity Count Binface, "Rubbish policies for a Rubbish Britain", only got 95 votes; but there it is.

If I could sit down and have a pint with Burnham I would advise him - be bold and be decisive. You may as as well be hung for a sheep as a microbe; which is what would have happened under Starmer; and, who knows, perhaps bold government will attract support.

[Sheilbh]

Mentioned before that Ed Davey is coming under pressure and seen more open comments from some Lib Dem MPs recently. And someone pointed out that so far since the general election every major party has now won a by-elections - except for the Lib Dems. For someone of my generation that's wild

[mongers]

Mentioned before that Ed Davey is coming under pressure and seen more open comments from some Lib Dem MPs recently. And someone pointed out that so far since the general election every major party has now won a by-elections - except for the Lib Dems. For someone of my generation that's wild

Which is kind of odd as voters have learnt to tactical vote in a big way from the Lib Dems, which has so benefited the party in the past.
 
Now the thoroughly experience tactical voters amongst the electorate have identified the greatest danger, Reform, and by putting those tactics into practice are now 'killing' the lib Dems. 

[mongers]

The one downside to Burnham victory will be the re-emergence of 'Game of Throne' references in UK political discourse; I offer 3-1 on that Michael Gove mentions it in his next tv interview. 

[Sheilbh]

Which is kind of odd as voters have learnt to tactical vote in a big way from the Lib Dems, which has so benefited the party in the past.

I think some of it is a problem of the Lib Dems not really having a clear offer/pitch right now and that is on Davey. I think compared with Ashdown and Kennedy when I was young there's far less of a "Lib Dem" identity and I think they maybe need to rediscover a bit of their radical liberal heritage.

But also the Lib Dems old position was structured by two-party politics. For a long time the Lib Dems were the protest vote vehicle and the way you'd vote to punish Labour/Tories without having to vote Tory/Labour. People who want to protest vote on right and left have far better alternatives and in multi-party politics there's less "need" to vote Lib Dem.

I think in the current moment as well there's a particular challenge for them - which is sort of related. In that there's always a left-right split in politics but then I think the other cleavage is basically people who are fundamentally pro-system v anti-system parties - part of this reflects people's economic circumstances (for example on many economic metrics there are really interesting similarities between Green and Reform voters). The Greens and Reform both appeal to people who are anti-system possibly to the point of "burn it all down". The Tories and Labour contain both, a little uneasily. I think the Lib Dems are the most pro-system, things are fundamentally fine and we just need a few tweaks and adults in the room party (it's not for nothing that in recent months the people most likely to think Keir Starmer should stay as PM are Lib Dem voters - because he's very Lib Dem). I think that does limit their reach but also doesn't really make them as able to take advantage of by-elections in the way they did under Ashdown and Kennedy as a more outsider and radical party.

I think all of that fundamentally reduces the Lib Dems to their core vote which is basically the Celtic fringe, the areas of South-West London housing a disproportionate number of law firm partners and as the alternative party to the Tories in the South of England.

Now the thoroughly experience tactical voters amongst the electorate have identified the greatest danger, Reform, and by putting those tactics into practice are now 'killing' the lib Dems. 

I don't think this is a big factor - it's sort of part of the system v anti-system parties. There are basically zero seats where the Lib Dems and Reform are in competition (possibly some of the Celtic fringe as a slight exception). Their voter bases are radically different.

But I do think the Lib Dems benefited from a point when the tactical voting was "who can beat Labour/Tories here?" I think it's far more complicated in a multi-party era and they need to have a bit more of a USP.

Again if I was them I'd go full hell-for-leather pro-European party, plus Liberal radicalism: anti-ID cards, protection of free speech, improving access to justice/courts, suspcious of overweening/"nanny" state involvement in people's lives etc. Sadly the reality is I'm not sure what Ed Davey would do that would be at all different from Keir Starmer on basically anything - he'd be a bit ruder about Donald Trump but that's about it.

[Josquius]

The only explanation for the lib dems that computes for me at the moment is they're biding their time nationally, putting everything into a handful of local seats, awaiting the final death of the tories when they can sweep in as the sensible right wing party.

Tactical voting.... Worked well here.
Lots of occasions with no clear cut sane option where it doesn't go so well though.
Fingers crossed PM Burnham at the least gives us supplementary vote. Naff. But miles better than FPTP

[Jacob]

I think it's one of the better features of our elections. It's pretty easy to get on the ballot. Everyone, from the Prime Minister down, has to gather in a sports hall or community centre of council workers who've counted the votes and party activists. The future PM or cabinet minister is at the same level as the crank or the eccentric or Count Binface. And winners and losers have to share a stage while the results are announced. I think within those practices are things that are positive a democratic culture.

Agreed

[crazy canuck]

This image makes one wonder how one could take UK elections seriously, but...I live in America. 

Have you paid much attention to the types of politicians who run in your primaries?

[Valmy]

Have you paid much attention to the types of politicians who run in your primaries?

We have plenty of unserious clowns in our minor third parties but unlike the UK's unserious clowns they pretend to be serious and are not even fun.