Why Labour lost in Uxbridge and South Ruislip
JVL Introduction
Everyone is blaming Labour’s failure to take Uxbridge on Sadiq Khan’s anti-Ulez policy.
Adam Ramsay in openDemocracy challenges this easy explanation.
It is clear that the ULEZ scheme in place in central London since 2019 has been a success in reducing pollution and associated disease. And there is broad consensus on the need to tackle air pollution.
Instead of making the case for Ulez and supporting London’s mayor, Labour candidate Danny Beales (a councillor in Starmer’s constituency) looked for easy votes by opposing it.
It didn’t work. As Ramsay puts it, “voters hate few things more than politicians who look like they’ll say anything to get elected.” Labour offered nothing positive.
The defeat was followed soon after by the resignation of the chair of Uxbridge and South Ruislip Constituency Labour Party (as chair and from the Party) saying politics needs “principles” and praising former party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
RK
This article was originally published by OpenDemocracy on Fri 21 Jul 2023. Read the original here.
What Uxbridge does (and doesn’t) tell us about ULEZ and Labour’s strategy
Both Labour and the Tories blame Sadiq Khan’s anti-pollution strategy. But are they right about what voters want?
Loading article text…
In short, the Tories successfully mobilised the Mr Toad element with the result that their vote fell by less than it otherwise would have done.
Note also that while this factor will fall away at the GE (not least because the Tories will be fighting 600+ seats, not three), it’s more likely than not that the GE will be held during the academic year, in which case the student vote at Brunel University will be in play
400-odd votes the other way and you can guarantee Starmer would have been strutting around some park in Uxbridge with the candidate he himself selected in front of a band of adoring party functionaries before climbing onto a platform to claim credit for a triumph of Starmerism. As it was he had to go all the way to north Yorkshire for this grisly little ceremony. In Uxbridge, though, Labour’s defeat was nothing to do with the party leader — it was unquestionably the fault of Mayor Sadiq Khan. After all, Starmer and the candidate he parachuted into the constituency had publicly opposed the ULEZ extension — a flagrant act of disloyalty to Labour’s London mayor. Secretary David Evans may well be checking through Khan’s social media back catalogue with a view to suspension. Perhaps the mayor enthused about I Daniel Blake or Kes, or even went to see The Old Oak!
The candidate was imposed after the local Party was effectively shut down. The candidate they imposed was from Starmer’s own CLP, a sectarian and corrupted Party which effectively blocked and removed all non-compliant Labour Councillors and potential Councillors from the selection process. There’s a grim justice in seeing a corrupt and corrupting influence on the Party and the movement defeated by their own connivance.
hold ones nose and vote Labour?? Sadly no longer a member after many,many years.
Well argued and convincing.
The more I see of Starmer, the more I wonder WHO is his puppet-master; How many hours a day do they have to spend directing him; and WHAT their goals are …
The next few years will be very scary and uncomfortable I fear.
No, he hasn’t. Totally unprincipled. Excellent article thanks
If the Conservatives claim ULEZ won them the seat then that doesn’t say much for the Conservative candidate, his policies and how he intends to serve the community as the MP. The Conservatives would do well to think of positive policies for the looming general election as opposition to ULEZ won’t win them that election. Starmer and the Labour candidate were exposed as charlatans and opportunists and deserved not to win. The alleged massive swing to Starmer and Labour is an illusion but they may still win in 2024, particularly if Sunak’s main electoral winning policy is opposition to clean air – what next, opposition to clean water?
He has no parliamentary skills whatsoever, and, when he inevitably becomes PM, will be exposed as a chancer, a liar and in the pocket of the US government. The only hope for us all is that that exposure comes sooner rather than later.
Worth recalling that real traditional redistributive Labour in the guise of Ken Livinstone’s led GLCs, ‘Fare’s Fare’ policy subsidised London transport tickets in order to positively price people out of their cars.
As usual entryist Blairite fake Labour deals with issues by attacking the working class on low-incomes, here pricing them out of full participation in London. And it was the working-class who founded the Party.
Also once again the comparison with traditionalist Corbyn and Blairites voter turnout reveals a lot about the issue of genuine Labour representation. In these 3 local elections Labour turnout was down – often by thousands – on the last two election outings.
Uxbridge & South Ruislip Labour 2023 – 13,470 votes, 2019 – 18,141 votes, 2017 – 18,682.
Somerton & Frome Labour 2023 – 1,009 votes, 2019 – 8,354 votes, 2017 – 10,998 votes.
The only exception being Selby & Ainsty where Labour got more votes in 2023 than it did in 2019 but even here this is 3,000 less votes than it did in 2017.
It would seem if the Tories get their core vote out they might still come back, because Starmer has no chance of getting Labour’s core vote out in numbers. Nor does he really deserve to!
I think the ULEZ issue is very much about “it ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it”. The large majority of old cars and vans that are unsuitable for an ULEZ are owned by poorer people, who might normally be expected to vote Labour. Most can’t afford either to pay £12.50 a day or to get a newer vehicle.
I understand that there is a scrappage scheme, but it goes nowhere near covering the cost of replacement – if it did, there would be no problem!
ULEZ had little to do with Labour’s loss in Uxbridge & South Ruislip. It was Labour London Region’s / Starmer HQ’s decision to abandon principle and its own principled Mayor that lost voters who might have voted Labour if a principled campaign had been fought. Electors are rumbling the triangulation turpitude that marks Keir Starmer and his dictatorial clique. As a lifelong Labour voter, for the first time I will not be voting Labour at the next General Election for this reason – and because the cause of principled politics may be better advanced by a hung Parliament.
What a truly fantastic article.
Many thanks for tracking it down for us.
It does not matter how good a policy is, if you do not argue for it then you will probably lose because somebody will misrepresent it.
The £12.50 daily ULEZ charge on old cars is a vicious attack on working people.
This article rests on the condescending premise that opponents of the ULEZ extension are either reactionary or don’t care about pollution. And conversely, that anyone who wants to live in clean air, supports the ULEZ extension. This makes no sense. Living in clean air is very much a working-class issue: that’s why we talk of “living in leafy, green areas” as an indication of wealth and privilege.
ULEZ is a regressive tax, disproportionately penalising the very people least able to replace their cars, and at £12.50 a day it is a swingeing tax that hits people working long hours and often living in areas poorly served by public transport.
There is a glaring omission in this article: any kind of discussion about public transport. Khan failed abysmally to fight the Tories and secure proper funding for TFL. He instead chose to make swingeing cuts to public transport.
This article is simply green hogwash – a reactionary defence of attacks on the working class, dressed up to look radical.
Starmerites feeling confident about this constituency might also note that Laurence Fox’s Reclaim took 714 votes off the Tories.
Come the GE these voters might be less willing to punt with an experimental vote?
Khan either didn’t listen or didn’t care about the impact on the Working Class. Public Transport in London is inadequate and expensive for the majority of the Working Class. When Ken Livingston expanded Public Transport and made it much more economical, people used the Buses, Trains and Tube Trains and left their cars at home, 50 people on one bus = at least 30 extra cars travelling on the Roads. I lived in Mitchum and worked in the Euston Rd, I cycled to work and would beat anyone using public transport, I switched once Ken’s policies were fully in operation. Starmer, by repeating, in a BBC interview that he would have to reflect on ULEZ, showed 2 things we already knew, he has no political nouse whatsoever and is being primed by the likes of Mandelson (a Rightwing, Anti Socialist). It’s only his Dictatorial Rightwing Policies of getting rid of the Socialists in the Party that are stopping Labour winning the majority of by-elections and hovering just above the Tories in the Polls.
Excellent article.
I suppose a pertinent question to ask the Sir Kid Starver devotees would be: “If you’re going to adopt so many Tory policies in order to get Tories to vote for you, then who do those of us who don’t want Tory policies vote for?”