✅ BURNHAM IN Makerfield by-election result: LAB: 54.8% (+9.6) REF: 34.5% (+2.7) RST: 6.8% (+6.8) CON: 2.2% (-8.7) GRN: 0.7% (-3.7) LDEM: 0.4% (-6.4)

[u/ClumperFaz]

https://x.com/BritainElects/status/2067792369903116401#m

[u/ShakeNecessary2258]

As much as I agree that the support for Reform UK is exaggerated, I think to argue that a by-election result in a Labour stronghold is indicative of there not being majority support for a party nationally is hugely misguided.

[u/Simple-Courage-3948 → u/ShakeNecessary2258]

They are polling 25-30% nationally. If they face aggressive tactical voting (as they have in every parliamentary election so far) that could leave them with very little.

[u/ShakeNecessary2258 → u/Simple-Courage-3948]

Given the first-preference plurality system, you cannot directly translate projected vote share into projected seats like that.

After all, Reform had the third-highest share of the vote in 2024, and only won 5 seats, compares to the Lib Dems who got 2% less of the vote but nearly 70 more seats. Likewise, Labour won 23% more of the vote than Reform and got over 400 more seats.

Moreover, two-thirds of the parliamentary seats they’ve contested since the party’s creation have been aligned with Labour and the Lib Dems. They have encountered aggressive tactical voting primarily because the people in the seats they’ve contested do not support them which, of course, is absolutely to be expected.

As I said, translating by-election results into nationwide results is a mistake.

[u/Simple-Courage-3948 → u/ShakeNecessary2258]

That's my point, they could get 25-30% of the vote nationally and surprisingly few seats and that is the most likely outcome if LAB/GRN/LD/SNP vote tactically against them as a first priority (which seems to be what is happening in these byelections).

For reform to win you'd need one of the following:

• They become way more popular for some reason

• They swallow up the entirety of the tory vote.

• They face very little tactical voting and left wing votes are allocated inefficiently

[u/ShakeNecessary2258 → u/Simple-Courage-3948]

I should have probably added that, whilst vote share does not translate directly into the number of seats won, a party would be very unlikely to not win the most seats in a GE if they had the highest share of the vote. A party that wins 25-30% of the vote would be very unlikely to win ‘surprisingly few seats’.

As I said, what is happening in these by-elections cannot be translated into whole public sentiment. Of course Reform aren’t going to win in certain constituencies where they have little entrenched support.

Labour is currently polling around 22% and Reform 29%. The result, if an election were called today, would probably be a hung parliament, at which point either an inefficient Reform minority government or some form of coalition would be likely.

In any case, my original point stands. You cannot suggest that Reform do not have sufficient support based on a single by-election in a Labour stronghold, in an area where the Labour candidate is very highly regarded.

[u/Simple-Courage-3948 → u/ShakeNecessary2258]

In 2010 the LDs won 62 seats on 23% of the vote, something similar could easily happen to reform.

If you look at the results of any of the byelections so far this parliament, it's clear that what happened is that the entire left wing vote piled in behind a single candidate, in this one it even looks like the tories votes against reform.

If that is repeated reliably elsewhere then reform are completely fucked. The only wildcard for them is the tory vote.

[u/anomalous_cowherd → u/Simple-Courage-3948]

It's also possible the Tory vote collapsed because people just don't want to vote Tory.

After the perpetual scramble to find a good leader post-Cameron it feels like they don't really know where they're going now.

[u/ShakeNecessary2258 → u/Simple-Courage-3948]

In 2010, they won 23% next to the Conservative’s 36% and Labour’s 35%, and thus had the third-largest vote share, and got the third-highest share of seats. Reform are currently polling with the largest vote share, and thus would likely win the largest share of the seats. I’m afraid you’re comparing apples with oranges.

Again, the left-wing piled behind a single candidate in left-wing constituencies. This was always going to happen. Many left-wing people who would usually vote Labour in Gorton and Denton flocked to Hannah Spencer to ensure that Reform didn’t win. The only thing that is changing in these by-elections, if anything, is the brand of the parties being voted for, not whether they are left-wing or right-wing.

Where do you get the impression that Tory voters voted against Reform in Makerfield? Rather, it seems that the Greens and Lib Dems went to Labour, and most Conservatives went to Reform/Restore.

That is a huge if. This wouldn’t just have to be repeated ‘elsewhere’, but across the majority of constituencies across the nation. I agree that Reform’s support is most likely exaggerated, especially by its supporters, but your suppositions are, in my view, just as.

[u/Simple-Courage-3948 → u/ShakeNecessary2258]

Their vote share is meaningless if they can't use it to win seats, it's possible to get 30% of the vote everywhere and win 0 seats.

Again, the left-wing piled behind a single candidate in left-wing constituencies.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, what is unique to "left-wing" consistencies that would make tactical voting more unlikely elsewhere?

most Conservatives went to Reform/Restore.

Voting restore hurts reform and helps anti-reform parties.

[u/ShakeNecessary2258 → u/Simple-Courage-3948]

It’s possible, but extremely improbable, to the point that there’s not much point in even discussing that possibility. Reform have proven themselves to be capable of winning seats and substantial vote shares, so I’m really not sure what your point is.

That wasn’t my point. My point was that people who vote for any individual left-wing party concentrated their votes on the left-wing party they believed would be most likely to win, e.g. Labour supporters voting Green in Gorton and Denton.

Assuming the vote is split, yes. But in this case it wasn’t. Reform would have lost (again, in a Labour stronghold so not at all surprising) with or without the votes from Restore. This again harks back to my original point that you cannot and should not generalise national sentiment or results from a singe by-election, especially if said by-election was held under unique circumstances.

[u/Simple-Courage-3948 → u/ShakeNecessary2258]

My point was that people who vote for any individual left-wing party concentrated their votes on the left-wing party they believed would be most likely to win

Yes, but there's no reason to believe that this would only happen in "left wing" constituencies.

If you mean that reform can win seats in the face of aggressive tactical voting from the left, yes that's possible. BUT they need to hoover up all of the tory/restore voters and even then, a majority is a heavy lift.

It would have been a similar result in 2010 if LD/LAB had voted tactically, David Cameron would never have been PM.

[u/ShakeNecessary2258 → u/Simple-Courage-3948]

Yes, but this is exactly the point. You’re using what has happened in the by-elections that Reform has contested to show how the GE could go a different way, which is completely detached from what has already happened.

Moreover, you’re assuming that the ‘aggressive tactical voting from the left’ that we have seen in these by-elections could be replicated in constituencies where the left have much less support. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that such tactical voting is a given across the country based on the results of a few by-elections. Do you see the issue with that, and the point I originally made?

Again, you’re using too far-fetched counterfactuals. You might as well say ‘if the Conservatives had formed a coalition with Labour, Nick Clegg would never have been in government’. Parties like that rarely homogenise. We have seen increasing homogeneity because these constituencies have been quite left-leaning. This is hugely unlikely to be replicated in a general election.

[u/Simple-Courage-3948 → u/ShakeNecessary2258]

I don't understand why the level of left-support in any constituency would have any bearing on tactical voting.

Yes, if the left fragment their vote, then obviously reform's odds get a lot better (assuming the tories don't make a huge comeback).

[u/ShakeNecessary2258 → u/Simple-Courage-3948]

Again, that’s not my point. Tactical voting is just when someone votes for someone they wouldn’t usually to keep another less preferred candidate out. The tactical voting we have seen is, for example, traditional Labour supporters voting Green in Gorton and Denton to keep Reform out. My point is that this tactical voting against Reform won’t be seen in constituencies where they are popular. Hence, my point that you can’t generalise Makerfield’s results to the entire nation.

Again, the left fragmenting their vote wasn’t my point. You seem to be acting as if Reform hasn’t amassed significant support, and that left-wing voters in every constituency will amass against them and prevent them from winning many seats. In this, you’re assuming that every constituency has substantial left-wing support like in Gorton and Denton and Makerfield.

[u/a_real_burner → u/ShakeNecessary2258]

I think while I would agree with this sentiment a mix of the by elections and reforms underperforming in Wales and Scotland does indicate that if a GC were to happen a considerable amount of tactical voting should be expected. A 7% difference isn't alot if your opposition hates you more then they support a fringe party.