In July, voters across the country decided that what they wanted more than anything was to give the Conservatives a good electoral kicking. And so they did. In seats where there was an obvious challenger (or at least, where someone could establish themselves as the obvious contender), voters flocked to them. In other seats, where that choice wasn’t really so obvious, they appear to have leant towards Labour based on the national polling figures at the time.
In my own county of Suffolk, that led to Labour victories in places like Suffolk Coastal, where Labour had come fourth in the previous year’s council elections, and Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, where they had no electoral presence outside of Bury St Edmunds itself. The challenge for other parties was to establish themselves as the obvious choice on the ground and, in some places, we/they were successful.
But, as a voter, what do you do when Labour are unpopular too and there isn’t an obvious national choice either? Well, we had a preview of that this week in Suffolk, where all five parties fought the St Johns division by-election as though they meant it. The result:
- Labour – 600 votes (28%, -19.7%)
- Greens – 458 votes (21.4%, +13.6%)
- Reform UK – 442 votes (20.6%, new)
- Lib Dems – 323 votes (15.1%, +9.8%)
- Conservatives – 318 votes (14.9%, -24.3%)
A traditionally Labour seat where the Conservatives had always been the only serious challengers is now a seat where any of the main five parties might have ambitions to win it next time. It would be fair to say that neither the Greens nor the Liberal Democrats had much of a campaigning presence in the past, and of course Reform are something of a joker, in that they’re often hard to pick up in canvass data. But it does mean that the idea of picking a ward and winning it has a resonance that is stronger than ever. You may not need 40% or more to win – 30% might do it.
All of which makes this week’s local elections virtually impossible to predict on a national basis.
I’m not a fan of the cliché “where we work, we win”, as it isn’t always true, but I’d be the first to acknowledge that, where we don’t work, we don’t win. And so, good luck to all of you out there in the final days of the campaign!
Meanwhile, the past week has seen a further demonstration that Labour’s commitment to human rights isn’t even skin deep. Regardless of your view on trans rights, and I should emphasise at this point that Liberal Democrat Voice takes a pro-Trans rights stance, it is informative to note that, if push comes to shove, the Labour leadership will throw groups who are seen to be electorally unpopular (whether they are or not) under the bus rather than stand up for them. And yes, winning elections is important. But standing for something is even more so.
They might claim to feel worse about it than the Conservatives do, but the effect is the same. Don’t be a minority, don’t be poor, don’t be vulnerable because, ultimately, you’re still dispensable if it might preserve some votes somewhere else.
Our former colleague, the noble Lord Pack, made his maiden speech on Friday, so I’ll be covering that later, and I’ve also got a request for those of you who are town or parish councillors. And so, with that, let Monday commence…
* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He’s also a surprisingly doting grandfather and great uncle…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GUEST POST The state of our canals - and riverside pubs - today
Slow consulting
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
Three less conventional ways of looking at who supports Reform - The Week in Polls
Suzanne Fletcher
Greg Hyde
David Raw
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
19 Comments
Turnouts are another factor as are local dynamics in regards to independent candidates. Turnouts averaging between 25-35 % make it difficult to predict with any accuracy.
So many voters only bother once every 5 years and don’t see LE as a worthwhile cause to leave the front room etc .
Mark Valladares, perhaps you missed the fact that it was the Supreme Court ruling and not the Labour party who made the ruling..
@expats
While it is true that Labour is not responsible for the Supreme Court ruling, they do have a majority of MPs so could amend the Equality Act on which the ruling was based. However, it is clear that Labour is not willing to remove the right to single-sex spaces for ‘biological woman’ as a way of meeting the needs of trans women. I assume this is a decision based on how Labour views the electoral costs and benefits of acting, since the current Labour Party appears to no longer take decisions based on anything resembling principles.
@Mike: Or maybe it’s a decision based on seeking to balance the competing needs of different groups – including listening to the concerns of many women who feel concerned about their single-sex spaces – who seem to be not getting much of a mention here?
@Simon R
It could indeed be as you describe, but I don’t believe Labour suddenly cares about women who feel concerned about having to use mixed-sex spaces instead of single-sex spaces. I just they have concluded that there are more female voters who care about having single-sex spaces than trans women voters who also wish to use those spaces.
@Mike Peters 28th Apr ’25 – 10:44am….
What is your solution to this conflict?
“listening to the concerns of many women “?
Activist Charlie Craggs “”All the things you should be fighting for, and you’re trying to ban trans women from doing a wee?””
@Jenny: That quote is a complete misrepresentation of gender-critical people. No-one’s trying to ban trans women doing a wee. There is simply a (legitimate) debate about which toilets they should be using to do so.
@Mike: Maybe. I suspect the reality is a combination. MPs do after all spend a lot of time having party members and members of the public telling them their opinions, and there’s probably some evolution of views going on from this process – as evidenced by Starmer’s apparent reversal of position. I wouldn’t be surprised if an assessment of electoral popularity went into that kind of debate too (Which doesn’t invalidate a change of mind – after all that’s part of the point of democracy!)
@expats
My solution? I disagree with the EHRC guidance that the law requires all female changing rooms and toilets to be single-sex. In the case of hospitals, for example, there is no reason why some female changing rooms could be clearly marked as ‘single-sex female’ and others clearly marked as ‘inclusive female’. This would meet the needs of transwoman as well as those women who for religious or other reasons feel the need to change in a single-sex area.
Absolutely Simon. Difficult to get alternate points of view on this site with the five articles we’ve had since the supreme court ruling.
Chris Davies’s speech at conference was excellent, & Jonah Wheelers speech addressing similar issues in the US was superb from such a young Democrat. Well worth a listen.
@Mike Peters 28th Apr ’25 – 4:00pm..
Ignoring the ECHR when you don’t like the ruling smacks of ‘Reform’…
As for all theses extra toilets, why stop at hospitals? Government buildings, all workplaces, libraries, restaurants. etc., etc.. Good luck with that..
@Thelma Davies. I have known Chris Davies for over 40 years and campaigned for him in a number of elections. His speech at conference was a major departure from his usual Liberal stance. Far from being excellent it was a tirade of bigotry and prejudice that certainly shocked me and most of those in the conference hall.
Any person who calls for discrimination against a minority group really needs to consider their place and role in the Liberal Democrats.
@Expats. The Human Rights Commission does not make the law, it only issues guidance. Given the anti trans stance of its current chair (she left us because of it I seem to recall), I am driven to the conclusion that the issued guidance owes more to her prejudices than to the SC ruling. The NHS and other bodies are free to provide whatever toilet provision they wish.
I have often asked for examples of where women have come to harm or felt threatened by trans women. Where are the court cases? TERFs are stirring up fear and prejudice. I am reminded of doing an inspection of a local authority some years ago and was told that things were so bad -with respect to fear of rape- that women in some areas had stopped going out at night. When I asked how many cases there had been, the answer was zero. The fear had been stoked up by a well known London evening paper that circulated in the area, who reported rape as if it happened all over the place. [I should mention that this fear was of certain racial groups who did not even live in the council’s area]
@Mick: Your post contains another misrepresentation of gender-critical beliefs. I don’t think anyone seriously argues that genuine trans women threaten biological women in the way you’re making out. The argument here is more that if any man can use women’s spaces merely by declaring that they are trans – which is in effect what could have happened had the Supreme Court judgement gone the other way – then it becomes very easy for straight men enter women’s spaces (maybe with malicious intentions) by falsely claiming to be trans. Also and just as importantly, if a woman feels uncomfortable with a biological man being in ‘her’ space than that feeling needs to be respected. To my mind (and yes, I know I’m arguing as a man), to come up with statistics claiming actual danger is unlikely, with the implication that you therefore just expect the woman to put up with her discomfort (or even fear) is (a) not going to work, and (b) is completely disrespectful to her feelings.
“I don’t think anyone seriously argues that genuine trans women threaten biological women” Then why does the Ehrc guidance specifically exclude them? Including those with a Gender Recognition Certificate, which is not something you just “declare”
@SimonR. Where is your evidence that any men have pretended to be trans to get access to women’s spaces? The sort of men who might want to abuse women would never be seen dead in women’s clothes nor pretending to be women.
I am not doubting that some women now have these fears, but am asking how they were persuaded – in the absence of any evidence – that those fears are real.
@JennyBarnes. The EHRC are issuing these guidelines because of the TERF tendencies of their chair. It has little or nothing to do with the SC judgement.
Mick; This isn’t just about access to public toilets . It’s prisons , hospital wards , woman’s refuges, homeless shelters, crisis centres.
Dont you think women deserve the right not to have biological men in those spaces.
@Mick: Can I suggest you look at this Reddit thread in which some women explain their experiences of life and interactions with (some) men: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/w3mv8l/do_women_really_live_in_constant_fear_of_men_if/?rdt=41368 You might find there the answer to why many women feel they need spaces that men are not allowed to enter. And it has nothing to do with any political propaganda. You might also reflect on whether it’s appropriate to dismiss as ‘TERFs’ women who have possibly had those experiences.
You could also check out the awful story of Zhenhau Zou ( https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-south/news/phd-student-found-guilty-raping-10-women) as an example of the meticulous planning that some men will go to in order to commit sexual assaults. Yes of course it’s only a tiny minority of men, but I really wouldn’t share your confidence that no-one inclined to commit assault would consider pretending to be a woman if they thought doing so could give them access to victims.
@Thelma Davies
Yes I do, and women should never be accused of being transphobic for demanding their sex based rights. I do hope that government guidance ensures that, as well as protecting access to single-sex facilities for women (and men), it ensures access to appropriate facilities for those who live or identify with a gender different from their ‘biological sex’.