Doing the Henley squeeze

The results of the Henley-on-Thames by-election were described by breathless journalists as a new low for Labour. It was no doubt a very poor showing, but, and it is a very big but, the result was actually in line with virtually every other similar by-election since 1997.

Like it or not, the Henley result was a classic squeeze of progressive voters in a safe Tory seat where the Lib Dems came second.

It reflected the same pattern seen in the Winchester by-election in 1997 where Labour lost its deposit despite being 20 percentage points ahead in the national polls. A squeeze repeated many times in rural or suburban seats in recent years.

None of this was widely reported, even though Labour had been open about expecting to lose its deposit, despite fielding a strong local candidate.

And, it is interesting to look at what the Henley result may say for the Lib Dems and their reliance on southern rural and suburban seats.

For a smaller party they seemed to throw considerable resources at the Henley by-election. It was a contest where voters complained of leaflet fatigue and longed for it to be over.

Yet for all their efforts the Lib Dem vote actually dropped by over 2,300 votes from the 2005 General Election. The Henley result could bode badly for a third party with more southern seats won from the Conservatives than northern ones snatched from Labour.

So while Henley remains a very poor result for Labour it also offers a worrying lesson for the Lib Dems.

Comments

[B4L]

I don't buy the 'classic squeeze' argument. Even in '05 the Lib Dems were 27.5 points behind in Henley, and the likely gap was bound to have grown significantly. So there wasn't the slightest chance of a Lib Dem/Lab alliance working. I think that unless you can demonstrate that many of the 8000 missing Labour voters were really thinking about backing the Lib Dems strategically, it's much more likely (I'm afraid to say) that the mainstream media's explanation is right, and not this one.

Also, I can't help feeling that, having been beaten into 5th by the BNP, we should be feeling pretty humble.

[Diversity]

Winchester was an "anything but the Tories" by-election with LibDems in second place. Yes, Labour could expect to be squeezed. Henley was an "anything but Labour" by-election with the LibDems in second place. Yes, Labour could expect to be squeezed hard. Crewe and Nantwich was an "anything but Labour" by-election with the Tories in second place. Maybe it would have been even worse if the LibDems had been second.

But what is Matt Rhodda's reading of Glasgow East, that patch of what Fraser Nelson calls Third Scotland, which is about as different from Henley as can be?

[B4L]

I'm not sure that, defined in that way, 'squeezes' tell us anything very interesting (and so much for the 'progressive alliance'!). Until there's evidence of tactical voting we have to go with the simple/obvious conclusion that Labour was not popular in Henley in 2005, and has become dramatically less since. I don't see what crumbs of comfort you think we should take!