No Vote Of Confidence
Surprisingly, Labour won the by-election in Glenthrothes. I say “surprisingly”, but Labour were never out of the game. They always had a chance of winning, and only idiots *cough*Salmond*cough* said that it was in the bag for the SNP.
However, the amount of its vote that Labour managed to keep is surprising. In 2005, Labour had a majority of 10,664, and in 2008 a majority of 6,737, a loss of 4,000. The SNP increased its vote by 4,500, and both the Conservatives and Lib Dems lost their deposit. The biggest loser of the night was the Lib Dems, who were dismissed by the electorate into fourth place - down from third.
Gordon Brown has hailed this victory as a “vote of confidence” in the government. Err, excuse me? How, precisely?
Let’s look at the facts: Glenrothes is a Scottish constituency right next to Brown’s own; Gordo is a local boy, “a citizen of the Kingdom of Fife”; Labour’s candidate was the head teacher of a local school; neither Glenrothes or any of it’s constituent parts have ever had a non-Labour MP. So Glenrothe isn’t exactly a neutral area on which the success of policies can be based, since Brown and Labour had such an inbuilt advantage.
It simply cannot be regarded as any form of vote of confidence in Labour’s policies on a national basis - even though it is an undoubtedly a good thing for them.
I fear the blogger doth protest too much.
You would not expect a ruling party to do well in a by-election; it becomes a second-order election and people are more likely to use it to protest. Of course, a by-election in Scotland has limited use in predicting what will happen south of the border. Had Labour lost, it would have returned us to the narrative of a twelve weeks ago of an embattled PM. Labour didn’t drop the ball; that was the best they could, almost by definition, achieve at a by-election.
Labour’s majority decreased because the Lib Dem and SNP votes collapsed in favour of the SNP. However, in absolute and percentage terms, Labour increased its share of the vote. The technical term for that is, I believe, ‘result’.
xD.
Dave Cole´s last blog post..11th November, 1918
Ah, but devolution adds an entirely new dynamic to the situation.
In Scotland, labour are technically NOT the ruling party - the SNP are the Scottish Government and Labour the Opposition, so could this not be construed the other way around, that it is Labour who should be doing well? Especially since the SNP run the Fife council…
My primary point is that this singular by-election result cannot be construed with any legitimacy to be any sort of vote of confidence in Brown, Labour, or their economic policies.
It’s certainly a “result” for Labour, but not on the level that they are trying to claim.
Hmmm. I would say that result beats even the pre-election best case scenario.
Bit misleading to talk about the SNP government in an election for a Westminster MP too.
I am not sure what you mean by a “result” but not on the level Labour claim actually means even. They increased their share of the vote after 12 months of non-stop media attack, all quarters predicting a humiliating loss, a growing SCcottish nationalism and shift towards the SNP, after 11 years of government and the worst financial disaster looming in living memory. It was a a result - one by-election result that will have no baring on the general election itself. But it is symptomatic of the Labour recovery - at least short term recovery. And it also secured Brown’s job. I don’t sense Labour being show offs about it, but they have a right to be pleased and use the victory as some of capital to boost their image.