So let me try this theory on you: it was Tony Blair who won Runcorn and Helsby for Reform UK.
It was clear at once that the by-election was going to be a close contest between Labour and Reform UK. And, sure enough, analysis of the result shows that the Conservative vote largely went to Reform and the Liberal Democrat vote largely went to Labour. The party whose vote Labour couldn't squeeze was the Greens.
Now what happened in the last couple of days of the campaign that could have made Green Party supporters unwilling to lend their votes to Labour?
Here's the Guardian from Tuesday of this week:
Tony Blair has called for the government to change course on climate, suggesting a strategy that limits fossil fuels in the short term or encourages people to limit consumption is "doomed to fail".
In comments that have prompted a backlash within Labour, the former prime minister suggested the UK government should focus less on renewables and more on technological solutions such as carbon capture.
Blair said people were "being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal". He said "any strategy based on either 'phasing out' fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail".
If I were a committed Green I would have given up any idea of voting Labour after that.
h/t Dan Cole on Bluesky.
I think the same goes for committed Lib Dems! But it is notable how the LD percentage went down and the Greens went up: perhaps in any case LDs are more willing to lend support to Labour than Greens are?
ReplyDeleteI think we are. I suspect Green voters are like middle-class Labour supporters tended to be in the Eighties - they were quite offended if you broached the idea of a tactical vote. (Working-class Labour voters, by contrast, were quite up for getting the Tories out.)
Delete