The message Starmer and Labour must heed from by-election voters

For all of Labour’s large current national poll lead, it appears that too many voters were drawn back into the Conservative camp as a result of a little local difficulty. John Curtice explains what that might mean for 2024

New MP Keir Mather (centre), with Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner (PA)

Two very different results. In Selby and Ainsty, a seemingly safe Conservative seat, Labour achieved a remarkable success. But in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, which looked like an apple that would fall easily into the party’s lap, Labour suffered an unexpected disappointment

What lessons might there be for the party in these two very different results?

First, the good news. The Conservatives are indeed in deep electoral trouble. The 23.7 per cent swing in Selby is the second-highest swing from Conservative to Labour in by-election history, outpointed only by the 29.1 per cent swing that Tony Blair achieved in Dudley West in 1994. Never before in a by-election have the Conservatives lost so safe a seat to Labour.

Meanwhile, on average across all three of Thursday’s by-elections, including the rather better result in Uxbridge, the Conservative share of the vote fell by 21 points – a slightly higher figure than the 18 point drop currently being registered by the national polls. In short, Labour is facing a badly wounded opponent.

But then the not-so-good news. Despite their difficulties, the Conservatives were seemingly successful in Uxbridge in derailing Labour’s efforts by campaigning against the Ulez extension to London’s low emission zone proposed by Labour’s London Mayor, Sadiq Khan. In short, for all of Labour’s large current national poll lead, it appears that too many voters were drawn back into the Conservative camp as a result of a little local difficulty.

For some in the party, this may increase their doubts about how the party is approaching the task of winning the next election. It has sometimes been characterised as a “Ming Vase” strategy – to avoid giving offence to those whom the party has won over and not to present a hostage to fortune that their Conservative opponents might be able to exploit.

This is reflected, for example, in the party’s wish to emphasise its fiscal responsibility, not to say too much about Brexit, and to avoid being as too liberal on “culture war” issues.

Much like New Labour in the 1990s, it is a strategy born of a lack of confidence in the party’s electoral strength following four election defeats in a row. And it is not a baseless concern. While Labour is ahead of the Conservatives on which party could best manage the economy, that lead only averages seven points, well below the party’s 18-point advantage in vote intentions. Many voters are, in truth, currently doubtful about the ability of any party to turn the economy around.

To this are added two further difficulties. First, Sir Keir Starmer lacks the popularity and charisma of Tony Blair. Shortly before Tony Blair won in 1997, Ipsos gave him a net satisfaction rating of +22. Sir Keir’s latest rating from the same company is -18.

Second, the next government is likely to be presented with a much more difficult economic and fiscal situation than the one that New Labour faced in 1997. In abandoning a reversal of the two-child limit to welfare benefits has revealed, as well as scaling back its plans for green investment, Sir Keir has –implicitly at least – acknowledged fiscal reality as well as emphasised his centrist credentials.

Voters appear to be looking for a party that can extract Britain out of the mess in which it finds itself – and is not yet sure it has found one. The less that Labour limits the policy distance between itself and the Conservatives, the greater the risk that some Labour supporters are so unenthusiastic about their choice that they are won back by the Conservatives when Labour hits a little local difficulty.

Of course, Starmer might retort that the extension of the Ulez scheme is just the kind of hostage to fortune that the party needs to avoid. Nevertheless, Labour seem to be hoping that holding out the prospect of seeing the back of a Conservative government while avoiding the excesses of Corbynism will be enough to deliver its victory at the general election. The lesson from Uxbridge may be that it isn’t quite enough.

John Curtice is Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, and Senior Research Fellow, NatCen Social Research and ‘The UK in a Changing Europe’