In terms of what's happened in the constituency, several things were at play
1) As reported a few days ago, Labour felt its GOTV had really worked this time. 2) Leadbeater was a good candidate and respected locally. Attracted Tory support.
3) Galloway was successful at eating into Labour Muslim vote but intriguingly Labour likely did better than expected solidifying more traditional support and potential waverers. Maybe even bits of Tory vote 4) Part of that may have been Galloway himself. Those who REALLY didn't..
...want Galloway coalesced behind Leadbeater. 5) The Conservative campaign was very low key. He barely did interviews. Tight margins- it all matters. 6) The Tory national lead has shrunk in the last weeks. Hancock may have...
...played a part. Vaccine sheen may no longer be quite as shiny.
And for national politics?
The key thing about this is it buys Keir Starmer time. If he'd lost whispers about a challenge would have been very loud...
...he would have appeared even more embattled. This gives him clear space into the summer and party conference. What he does with that time will be crucial to rethink his strategy and work on his prospectus. His leadership was never based on ideological or intellectual fervour...
...it was always based on his being a "winner." Losing twice in a row would have been completely crushing- not least because, without that fervour or base in the party, he has little else.
It will also be a key morale boost to a Labour Party which has...
...been deeply demoralised since Hartlepool. Not least because this is Batley and Spen, it's Jo Cox's seat and of special emotive significance for the party.
None of this is to say that this is a deeply impressive win and that Labour's on its way to government. If Labour...
...path to Downing St were assured, if Starmer had taken the country by storm then there would be no question of their retaining it. The fact the Tories were close adverts to their robust political position.
That said- there was no split on the right. If Galloway hadn't stood...
...Labour would probably have won more strongly. Many Conservative MPs thought they were on path to victory.
What this shows and what Chesham and Amersham showed is that there are limits to Conservative hegemony. That might not sound like much but given the tenor of politics...
...since 2019, it actually really is.
Also phew
Something else which is important
Lib Dem vote was down- likely transference to Labour (they also say they took some votes from the Tories)
And no Green candidate. Again, with such a tight margin, may have made the difference.
NB To those taking issue with the word “traditional” here (essentially adverting to older, white working class voters) you’ve got a point, it’s a clumsy term to use given Muslim voters have been a key part of the Labour coalition for a long time. 6am inarticulate brain-apols
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
While we’re waiting, some by - election trivia, because, let’s face it, up you’re up you are going to enjoy it
In modern British political history there have been four full calendar years without a single by election
1992, 1998, 2010 and 2020
(These were bad years)
Winston Churchill contested no fewer than five by elections
1899-Oldham
1908-Manchester North West
1908-Dundee
1917-Dundee
1924-Westminster Abbey
Labour might think it’s having a poor run at the moment but nothing by comparison to its longest stretch without a by election gain, 18 years between the 1939 Brecon and Radnorshire by election and 1957 in Lewisham North
But not long to find out! Will be on air later this morning on the BBC News channel as the results come through. There’s absolutely no world in which you shouldn’t stay up for it, frankly
As ever for those asking, no exit poll. Only done at general elections.
Yesterday we broadcast the latest of our pieces on the building safety crisis. So often it's supposed the costs for leaseholders are arising as a result of changes in building safety law now. But it can also be about a failure in building safety which goes back decades.
Leaseholders at Transport House, as in many other places, believe that their building did not necessarily comply with building regulations even when it was built- in 2004. If so, it adds another layer of deep injustice to an already unjust story. Are they right to be concerned?
To try to answer that we have to go back to the relevant building regulations as they were then-the 2000 building regulations, which on fire spread said: “The external walls of the building shall adequately..."
NEW: Matt Hancock has resigned from the government.
“Those of us who make these rules have got to stick by them and that’s why I’ve got to resign.”
Question is why that conclusion wasn’t reached yesterday when the govt line was it was a “private matter” and indeed at the start of the day that no “rules” had been broken.
Mr Hancock’s resignation letter:”We owe it to people who have sacrificed so much in this pandemic to be honest when we have let them down as I have done by breaching the guidance.”
Until this afternoon the No 10 line was that the PM “considered the matter closed.” What changed?