- Politics, Institutions, and Public Opinion
- Campaigns & Elections
- Revitalizing American Institutions
The three parliamentary by-elections held in the United Kingdom on June 18 were notable for several reasons. As described in my previous essay, the Makerfield (Manchester) contest was a crucial move in the political chess match that led to the ouster of Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Second, the outcomes of the three elections contributed to the sense that the supposedly unstoppable Reform Party is, in fact, stoppable. And a third implication was that the beleaguered Conservative Party is showing signs of life.
Makerfield
This contest was a two-horse race between Labour and Reform, as discussed in my June 26th essay, which the former won by a country mile. By contrast, the Conservative, Green, and Liberal Democratic parties hardly made a ripple. They all “lost their deposit,” which is when a party’s candidate receives less than 5 percent of the vote and thereby loses the ballot access fee. These parties also saw their vote totals decline in comparison to 2024, which may represent a tactical voting effect that benefited Labour and, to a lesser degree, Reform.
This decision may have been easy for voters because none of those parties had a strong presence in the constituency; in the previous election, the Tories won 10.9 percent, the Lib Dems 6.8 percent, and the Greens 4.4 percent. If these voters decided to support a candidate with a realistic chance of winning, we can hardly blame them.
Such logic will likely become increasingly prominent in a multiparty and polarized environment where ideological “bloc voting” may become the norm, although we cannot overlook the possibility of other dynamics, such as Tories voting Labour, depending on the circumstances.
The Scottish by-elections
Aberdeen South: This by-election was necessitated when the incumbent MP, a member of the Scottish National Party (SNP), resigned upon his election to the devolved Scottish parliament (Holyrood) in the May local elections.
The winner, and by a large margin, was the Conservative Party candidate, Douglas Lumsden. He received almost half of the vote (49.5 percent), while the SNP placed second (28.6 percent), Reform a distant third (8.6 percent), and Labour fourth (5.4 percent). Both the Liberal Democratic (4.4 percent) and the Green Party (3.4 percent) candidates lost their deposits. This was the Tories’ first victory in a Scottish by-election since 1967. In contrast to Makerfield, voter turnout was distinctly lower.
The Scottish Conservatives had been on a losing streak recently, doing poorly in the May Holyrood elections and losing ground in the 2019 and 2024 parliamentary elections. The by-election was therefore a much-needed confidence booster; as a BBC headline put it, “Tories pick themselves up off the floor with unexpected Scottish by-election win.”
One response was that the election was unique because “Aberdeen is the heart of the North Sea oil and gas industry” and the election focused on such issues. How this invalidates the Tory victory is unclear, as “the Conservatives, Reform, and the SNP [were all] trying to persuade those in the city—dubbed the energy capital of Europe—they support the industry the most.” It may help to explain the poor performance of the Greens, however. And while a recent scandal involving the SNP likely hurt the party, the decline of the Labour vote (-19.4 percentage points) may have been a more important factor.
The BBC reported that “there was a sense that the [Reform] party’s attention was focused on the by-election in Makerfield rather than those in Scotland.” But if Reform cannot contest three elections simultaneously, one might ask how it will fight a general election. Regardless, it was the Tories who benefited from the problems besetting the SNP and Labour and took advantage of the political environment.
This was also a victory for Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who made three constituency visits during the campaign. After the win, she said, “Aberdeen has sent a message to the Labour government and the SNP that we will not be ignored.” As I noted in a previous essay, her approval ratings have also been steadily improving, and she has been solidifying support among party stakeholders.
Arbroath and Broughty Ferry: The by-election in this evocatively named constituency was also triggered by its incumbent MP winning a seat in Holyrood. It was considered a “reasonably safe seat” for the SNP, as it stuck with the party (although so did Aberdeen South) in the 2024 parliamentary elections, when it lost 39 seats.
The SNP candidate (Lara Bird) won with 44.1 percent of the vote, and she even gained 5.8 percentage points in comparison to the 2024 election. It was the Conservative, Jack Cruickshanks, who placed second, although over 20 points behind Bird. In addition, he beat the Reform Party candidate; while both parties improved in percentage terms in comparison to 2024 (3.9 and 9.6, respectively), it was the Conservative who was able to achieve not a win but a small moral victory.
Again, we see the complexities of the first-past-the-post electoral system in a multiparty environment. How many votes a candidate receives is important, but equally so is how the other votes are divided. Reform may have gained the most, but the overall vote distribution pushed the Tories into second place.
Conclusions
The Labour Party has decided to imitate one of the least attractive features of the Tories: regicide. Rather than looking within and understanding that a party divided over difficult economic, domestic, and national security issues is the root of the problem, it has taken the easy path of blaming the leader.
That Andy Burnham “is perceived to be to the political left of Starmer” and has complained about Britain being “in hock to the bond markets” is further cause for concern. Whether he truly believes in left-inflected economics, or is trying to appeal to what he perceives to be the modal Labour member, is equally bad news for a Britain that needs to generate economic growth, not find new ways to divide a stagnant pie. And President Trump’s description of Burnham as “extremely liberal” does not bode well for the immediate future of the Special Relationship.
Burnham’s unfortunately vague victory speech, which mentioned hope four times and change six times, provided no indication of a willingness to make difficult decisions. His recent speech on the economy doubled-down on “Manchesterism” with a decade-long plan to devolve power that was short on specifics, including how it would be funded.
In the meantime, the recent, and much overdue, conversation about defense spending, the Russian threat, and the unsustainable welfare state has been derailed. We can only hope the new Burnham government will find a way to overcome the prioritization of welfare over defense that characterizes 21st century Britain.
The media and pundit class bears much responsibility for this state of affairs. As I noted in a previous essay, they have “developed a thirst for intrigue and coups” and were “beside themselves with joy at the prospect of yet another prime ministerial regicide, which they are both reporting and encouraging.” They are very pleased with themselves for repeating Game of Thrones-style references such as “King of the North.” We should understand them as cheering on, for clicks and views, those who fiddle while Rome burns.
Lastly, the Tories have shown signs of life in 2026, both in the Scottish by-elections and in some aspects of the recent local elections.
How to follow this up? Rather than chase the populist right, the party should let Reform and Restore fight each other for this vote and push each other to the most extreme positions. If these two parties jostle to see who can attack immigration more, who can be the angriest culture warrior, who can bash Europe more, and who can act in the most ungentlemanly manner, the Tories will be positioned for a comeback in 2029.
By reclaiming the responsible center-right ground of economic freedom, individual liberty, national security, and common-sense social policies—and with a leader becoming more popular every month—the next (elected) government could well be Conservative.
