Makerfield by election

[secretsqirrel]

I suspect it's not possible to interpret much about Labour vs Reform from this by-election.

Basically Burnham was a popular local proven successful candidate with a track record who would very likely get rid of Starmer.

Just like Starmer didn't win the last General Election but rather the Conservatives lost badly handing Starmer a majority, so this time Starmer's unpopularity and perceived record as PM ensured Burhnam got a massive majority.

I'm guessing but maybe many who moved to Reform because they wanted "change", they thought things were not working and something different needed. For that group voting to increase Reform's presence in Westminster from 8 to 9 adding 1st time inexperienced MP would change nothing. But voting for Burnham would likely get Starmer out and thus new PM which could maybe make a difference the "change" that people keep repeating.

Do think they did that kind of detailed analysis?🧐

 

[C R]

I have confidence that Burnham as PM would be a bit better in presenting whatever policies he decides to run with.

I'm not even as confident as that.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I suspect it's not possible to interpret much about Labour vs Reform from this by-election.

Basically Burnham was a popular local proven successful candidate with a track record who would very likely get rid of Starmer.

Just like Starmer didn't win the last General Election but rather the Conservatives lost badly handing Starmer a majority, so this time Starmer's unpopularity and perceived record as PM ensured Burhnam got a massive majority.

I'm guessing but maybe many who moved to Reform because they wanted "change", they thought things were not working and something different needed. For that group voting to increase Reform's presence in Westminster from 8 to 9 adding 1st time inexperienced MP would change nothing. But voting for Burnham would likely get Starmer out and thus new PM which could maybe make a difference the "change" that people keep repeating.

I think there is a lot that's valid here and the Burnham factor was undoubtedly a real pull. I do think that it highlights a possible broader trend though, if you give liberals/leftists something to vote for then they will vote for it. Burnham has and Starmer hasn't.

I still believe the majority of the country can be quite closely grouped from centre right small 'c' conservatives to liberal left. I don't believe that a majority are politically and ideologically aligned with Reform. At GE level, if you give moderates something to back, I do think there are far more of us than those at either end of a political extreme.

 

[briantrumpet]

 

[Psamathe]

One aspect to the campaigning I found revealing and reflected badly on the capabilities of Labour MPs is their failure to interpret doorstep comments. I can be confident they/some failed to understand/listen/absorb/etc. because they all left with totally opposing "I was repeatedly told ..." stories. eg.Starmer supporters interviewed were saying "I campaigned in the constituency and everybody was telling me we need to just get on with our [Starmer's] agenda" whereas the pro-Burnham/change when interviewed were "Everybody was saying we need change and that the current leadership just isn't working ...".

Me thinks they were either making up fiction to support their personal views or not listening/hearing what they wanted to hear (eg voter says "I don't like Starmer" and they only hear "I <pause> like Starmer").