Some eye- opening points about the three by-elections
An analysis by Anthony Webber
I recently wrote separate articles on each of the by -elections held on Thursday 20th July 2023:
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/selby-and-ainsty-by-election/
These were based on one of the most important election issues, which the major parties wanted to avoid, that of the government’s disastrous Ukraine and Russia policies.
The local and national media, who broadly had deplorable by-elections coverage, no platformed the press releases which had been sent to them by me. These detailed that the candidates had been sent a questionnaire on the issue, and what their responses were.
Thus, the establishment, with the connivance of the media, managed to ensure the lid was kept on this issue and that the by-elections were fought on what they decided the issues were.
These boiled down to the voter deciding on which candidate from opposing management teams ( but basically with the same policies) should be elected.
This is what happened.
Each of the three main establishment parties won ( or in one case kept) a Parliamentary seat.
Despite there being huge dissatisfaction with the way the country is being run, there was in effect a game of musical chairs, but the outcome has been the same because they all support the government’s Ukraine and Russia policies.
For the avoidance of doubt, the government’s Ukraine and Russia polices are the main cause of rises in energy and costs of living, as well as damage to the economy, increases in taxes and reductions in services, to name just a few consequences.
The government knows that if there was any debate on their Ukraine and Russia policies, that they would lose the argument easily.
This is why they have gone for a policy of suppression of information and debate, ever since their policies on this issue started in February 2022.
They want the public to believe their story that the energy and cost of living crisis is caused by “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” which is not the case, demonstrated by the fact that countries who are neutral and don’t sanction Russia ( the majority of world countries) are far less affected economically.
During that time there have been two Parliamentary Petitions which have demanded a debate and each time the government have gone for a policy of censorship and no platforming so that as few people as possible knew about the petitions. Despite this, the Petitions have ensured the government had to respond and in doing so, showed how indefensible their policies on these issues have been.
There has also been an appeal sent to the Foreign Affairs Committee for them to discuss the issue, which has been disgracefully ignored.
These are key reasons why new MP’s of integrity are very much needed, who have the best interests of the UK at heart.
The three by-elections were opportunities to obtain such representation, but they were missed.
The establishment and the media ensured that only issues they wanted discussed, became the election issues.
Nothing else had a chance. There were instances of Candidates’ meetings being held, where only some of the Candidates were invited.
There were even complaints from three Independent candidates about how unfairly they had been treated in one of the constituencies.
The reality is that if the establishment controls the local and national media, it is impossible to have a fair election.
This is a serious issue which can only be addressed by taking back control of the media, so it is free and impartial, especially at election times, and that more new media is started up which takes freedom issues importantly.
The presentation by the media in each constituency that there was a contest between who they said were the leading contenders, was an appalling act of sabotage of any fair election process. In each of the three constituencies there was a huge difference in votes obtained by the top two contenders, and those further down the list. Voters were not voting for their personal choices, but for one of two candidates they were told the election was between.
Despite having the same national policies, the Liberal Democratic candidates in the other two constituencies lost their deposits, but in Somerton and Frome, their candidate received the highest percentage votes of 54.6%.
The media hyped up this candidate, the same as they did the winning candidates of the parties in the other two constituencies.
It is well known that the media can influence how people think and vote. The example of behaviour control during the covid-19 “pandemic” demonstrates this fully.
The media presented the by-elections as a test of how the government would perform at a General Election. It ended up being the candidate with the perceived most chance of winning actually doing so in two of the constituencies.
In Uxbridge it was different. The ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) and ( LTN )Low Traffic Neighbourhood issues became election issues, and not so in the other two constituencies.
Several Uxbridge candidates focused on opposing ULEZ, including very sensibly the Conservative candidate. The Labour candidate appeared to give mixed messages on the issue, and the worries the voters had on his stance had an effect. In Uxbridge, the Conservatives only lost 7.4% of their vote, compared with losses of 29.6% in Somerton and 26% in Selby.
Irony
The ironic point is that the move towards Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, Low Emission Zones and “Fifteen-minute Cities,” has come about because of millions of pounds of funding from Michael Gove’s Levelling Up funds. In other words, none of these ideas would be happening if it were not for the Conservative government! Labour of course is just as bad because of pushing these policies in London and elsewhere.
Voters’ dilemma
The problem when the voter is confronted with having to choose from several anti-ULEZ candidates, is that they are most likely going to choose the one perceived to be the one most likely to win, and they chose the winner.
Those other candidates could have dropped out of the election contest at the time they could do so without any penalty, but they did not do so.
The number of anti-ULEZ candidates probably worked against them all, as can be seen by the low votes obtained.
The questionnaire on what the Candidates’ views were on Ukraine/Russia issues was a chance for them to open up the debate and show how government policies in that regard had pushed up energy and, other costs of living. Of the 17 candidates in Uxbridge, only 8 responded. Of the 8 who didn’t, four. were anti-ULEZ candidates. That is not the way to get votes! Credit to those who tried though.
In all three constituencies, only two third placed candidates saved their deposits ( Green Party).
Out of a total of 38 candidates, 30 lost their deposits ( including one Labour candidate), which means that in addition to the media treating each constituency as a two-horse race, some of the candidates did one or more of the following:
1.) Did not put sufficient effort into the election.
2.) Did not have proper manifestos.
3.) Did not get their leaflets delivered to all the electorate.
4.) Did not present themselves as potential MP’s who could represent all those in their constituency.
5.) Did not have more than one policy issue.
6.) Did not seek or failed to take advice.
7.) Did not run professional campaigns.
It was actually recognised by the media that the key issue was the high energy and living costs, but the candidates failed to capitalise on this. Yes, it was good that some candidates responded very well to the questionnaire, but they needed to directly challenge their election opponents on the issue.
Several candidates said the questionnaire involved the most important issues of the election and strongly believed they should be debated in the campaign. They were frustrated in this by the media.
One out of the three election victors responded, Sara Dyke, the Liberal Democratic candidate in Somerton and Frome. She had a reputation as a Councillor of listening and serving her electors. She may have espoused the party’s line on Ukraine and Russia, but she understood the need to respond and listen to all strands of opinion. In contrast, all the Conservative and Labour candidates did not respond, as well as one of the three Libdem candidates.
Of the other responses, one of the three Green candidates did.
Of the two SDP candidates, two responses, one a full answering of the questionnaire.
Of the two CPA candidates, just one full answering of the questionnaire
Of the two UKIP candidates, just one fully answering the questionnaire, and he obtained four times as many votes than the one who didn’t.
Of the two Reform UK party candidates, one responded, and he obtained more votes than the one who didn’t.
Of the one Reclaim party candidate, he did not give a response, and had a lower-than-expected vote.
The Heritage party candidate responded.
The Let London Live candidate fully answered all the questionnaire.
The Rejoin the EU candidate responded as did Count Binface
Out of nine Independent candidates, five responded, two answering all the questionnaire.
Two of those not responding were at the bottom of the poll.
The two Monster Raving Loony candidates did not respond and were close to the bottom of the poll.
The two Climate party candidates did not respond and were at the bottom of the poll.
Clearly those candidates who did not respond to the questionnaire risked losing votes and overall, that is what happened.
If the local and/or national media had mentioned the results the effect would have been even greater.
It would be interesting to see if those who had not responded, had in fact responded, and how many more votes they might have obtained.
Candidates not responding need to realise that a questionnaire is a test of how responsive they are, do they care, are they open to listening to opinions which may be different to their own, and are they prepared to debate a range of issues? In other words, can they be a good constituency MP and represent all?
The learning points for the parties and Independents standing in the three by-elections are as follows:
The Conservatives need to roll back on their ULEX type policies and re-examine other policies where Labour and Liberal Democrats are vulnerable.
Labour needs to review all their policies and stop being a bland alternative UK management team.
Liberal Democrats need to tone down their “woke” policies and focus on different policies which benefit the public.
The Greens also need to curb their increasing “wokeness,” and get back to basic green policies, but keeping their socialist policies will continue to attract disaffected Labour supporters.
The Rejoin the EU party has the problem that it is an admitted single issue party
The Climate party has the problem that the public are not keen on the climate change agenda as it is, let alone becoming worse.
Independents should only stand in Parliamentary by-elections if they are the only such candidate standing on at least one key election issue, and they have the ability to run an effective campaign.
The Heritage party, Let London Live party, Reform UK, Reclaim, the SDP, and UKIP need to have an urgent meeting. Unless they have some form of electoral pact, at the General Election the voters are likely to give them the same sort of treatment they were given at these by-elections which was disappointing. They might need to offer some form of deal to persuade Independents to stand. There are numerous important issues they could focus on, but they failed to do so at these by-elections.
Between all of them they barely obtained 5% of the votes.
To give examples of the minimum they should have achieved, in the 2015 General Election the % votes UKIP obtained were:
Uxbridge and South Ruislip, 14.2%., Selby and Ainsty, 14.0% ,and Somerton and Frome, 10.7%.
At the top end of the scale, at the Clacton by-election, UKIP won with 59.7% of the votes in 2014
At one time, UKIP had two MP’s They also had 24 MEP’s achieving 27.5% at the 2014 EU elections.
In 2019 the new Brexit party achieved 30.5% and 29 MEP’s, before the UK finally left the EU on 31st January 2020.
Since leaving the EU, UKIP and its Brexit associated parties have failed to find a new broad based political platform, as the reformed National Rally have done in France, who have 85 Deputy seats and perform at about 30% votes nationally. That is an example to examine.
Until the UK changes from the unfair first past the post electoral system to the STV( Single Transferable Vote) system ( where electors vote for candidates in order of preference), the nation is stuck in a system where the majority preferred candidate many not win the seat. It is hoped that action will be taken to bring this about.
A lot of thought needs to be put into how those standing at the next General Election are going to put together their strategies. It remains to be seen what they will do.
Below in the Appendix are the three by-election results
Anthony Webber
Independent Political Commentator
APPENDIX- BY-ELECTION RESULTS:
| 2023 Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election[24] | |||||
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
| Conservative | Steve Tuckwell | 13,965 | 45.2 | -7.4 | |
| Labour | Danny Beales | 13,470 | 43.6 | +6.0 | |
| Green | Sarah Green | 893 | 2.9 | +0.7 | |
| Reclaim | Laurence Fox | 714 | 2.3 | New | |
| Liberal Democrats | Blaise Baquiche | 526 | 1.7 | -4.6 | |
| SDP | Steve Gardner | 248 | 0.8 | New | |
| Independent | Kingsley Hamilton Anti-Ulez[a] | 208 | 0.7 | New | |
| Count Binface | Count Binface | 190 | 0.6 | +0.5 | |
| Independent | No-Ulez Leo Phaure[a] | 186 | 0.6 | New | |
| Rejoin EU | Richard Hewison | 105 | 0.3 | New | |
| Let London Live | Piers Corbyn | 101 | 0.3 | New | |
| Independent | Cameron Bell | 91 | 0.3 | New | |
| CPA | Enomfon Ntefon | 78 | 0.3 | New | |
| UKIP | Rebecca Jane | 61 | 0.2 | -0.4 | |
| Climate | Ed Gemmell | 49 | 0.2 | New | |
| Monster Raving Loony | Howling Laud Hope | 32 | 0.1 | -0.2 | |
| Independent | 77 Joseph[b] | 8 | 0.0 | New | |
| Majority | 495 | 1.6 | |||
| Turnout | 31,002 | 46.23 | 17.3 | ||
| Registered electors | |||||
| Conservative hold | Swing | 6.7 | |||
RESULTS
| 2023 Somerton and Frome by-election[34][35] | |||||
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
| Liberal Democrats | Sarah Dyke | 21,187 | 54.6 | +28.4 | |
| Conservative | Faye Purbrick | 10,179 | 26.2 | -29.6 | |
| Green | Martin Dimery | 3,944 | 10.2 | +5.1 | |
| Reform UK | Bruce Evans | 1,303 | 3.4 | New | |
| Labour | Neil Guild | 1,009 | 2.6 | -10.3 | |
| Independent | Rosie Mitchell | 635 | 1.6 | New | |
| UKIP | Peter Richardson | 275 | 0.7 | New | |
| CPA | Lorna Corke | 256 | 0.7 | New | |
| Rejected ballots | 97 | 0.2 | |||
| Registered electors | 87,921 | ||||
| Majority | 11,008 | 28.4 | N/A | ||
| Turnout | 38,885 | 44.23 | 31.4 | ||
| Liberal Democrats gain from Conservative | Swing | +29.0 | |||
There were 13 candidates standing for election. The full list was announced on 23 June 2023.
| 2023 Selby and Ainsty by-election[27][28] | |||||
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
| Labour | Keir Mather | 16,456 | 46.0 | +21.4 | |
| Conservative | Claire Holmes | 12,295 | 34.3 | −26.0 | |
| Green | Arnold Warneken | 1,838 | 5.1 | +1.9 | |
| [a] | Mike Jordan | 1,503 | 4.2 | +0.8 | |
| Reform UK | Dave Kent | 1,332 | 3.7 | New | |
| Liberal Democrats | Matt Walker | 1,188 | 3.3 | −5.3 | |
| Independent | Nick Palmer | 342 | 1.0 | New | |
| SDP | John Waterstone | 314 | 0.9 | New | |
| Monster Raving Loony | Sir Archibald Stanton | 172 | 0.5 | New | |
| Heritage | Guy Phoenix | 162 | 0.5 | New | |
| [b] | Andrew Gray | 99 | 0.3 | New | |
| Independent | Tyler Wilson-Kerr | 67 | 0.2 | New | |
| Climate | Luke Wellock | 39 | 0.1 | New | |
| Rejected ballots | 69 | 0.2 | |||
| Registered electors | 80,150 | ||||
| Majority | 4,161 | 11.6 | N/A | ||
| Turnout | 35,886 | 44.8 | 27.2 | ||
| Labour gain from Conservative | Swing | +23.7 | |||
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
