Labour holds Glenrothes - why the surprise?

To listen to the BBC, Labour's victory in the Glenrothes by-election yesterday was a huge surprise. To be fair to the BBC, they weren't the only ones to expect a SNP victory. The betting markets thought an SNP victory was on the cards - as did the SNP it must be said. It was also strange to see how the media shifted their predictions. Initially, they expected an SNP victory - ever since the by-election was first announced. However, by the weekend, the media said it was going to be a close result but Labour had the edge. As this week progressed however Labour were sounding more pessimistic while the SNP more optimistic so the media changed their predictions once again. But as Guido has pointed out, the PoliticsHome PHI 100 showed there was a sharp divide between what the media thought (SNP win) and what politicians thought (Labour hold).

The fact that Labour retained the seat came as no surprise to me at all - though the scale of their victory did, I must admit.

Had this by-election taken place a couple of months ago - or put it another way, had we not gone through the financial crisis - and Labour had still won I would have been just as surprised as the reporters and commentators of the BBC.

However, the financial crisis did intervene and helped improve the Prime Minister's standing and in doing so raised expectations - mine at any rate. Throw into the mix that Labour were defending a 10,644 majority in a traditional Labour seat which neighboured the Prime Minister's own constituency as well as the fact that Gordon 'McCavity' Brown campaigned twice in Glenrothes breaking convention that Prime Ministers do not campaign in by-elections, all pointed to a narrow Labour win to me, countering the normal trend that government's lose mid-term by-elections, particularly those run by Gordon Brown. The fact that McCavity showed his face in Glenrothes - not once, but twice - gave me confidence in a Labour victory. If Brown thought Labour were going to lose he would have been on the other side of the world!

Nevertheless, one should not understate that this is an excellent result for Labour and Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister's position has always been safe since the onset of the financial crisis - Labour would never make the mistake of being accused of putting party before country - so the result of this by-election mattered little in this respect. However, it is still an important result. Labour suffered a swing of 4.96% to the SNP but still comfortably retained the seat with a 6,737 majority which was a huge surprise and also very impressive given that this by-election took place mid-way through this Parliament, 11 years intro a Labour government, and at the beginning of a recession. The result will strengthen the Prime Minister's authority as Labour is already spinning it was a vote of confidence in Gordon Brown (I wonder whether they would have said the opposite had Labour been defeated?). Finally, the win for Labour plays nicely into the current media narrative that 'Brown is back' and helps reinforce the impression that the momentum is with Brown and Labour (as opposed to with Salmond and Cameron).

So how much credit can Brown take for the victory? One must concede that he deserves some credit because he has helped create an environment conducive for the victory. He has upped his game, and has won plaudits for the way he handled the financial crisis. His team of spinners have done very well in convincing the media our Dear Leader has been the saviour of the banking system and the world and this has translated into improvements in Labour's standings in the poll. Brown has been transformed from a defeated man walking to his electoral death who nobody was listening to anymore, to invigorated Gordon who has bounced back, is comfortable and enjoying himself, and is at the top of his game. The media have been instrumental in constructing this new narrative the past couple of months. This may very well have encouraged voters to reconsider Brown and Labour and not write them off like they were doing just a couple of months ago under the weight of a string of bad news.

However, as Professor John Curtice has argued, the result should largely be seen in the context of a unique set of local circumstances. Labour had learned from its past mistakes of fighting the SNP. They learned that campaigning against independence is insufficient. In Glenrothes, Labour changed tack and campaigned as an opposition - the SNP candidate Peter Grant is the Leader of the local council and was forced by the Labour Party to spend much of the campaign having to defend the SNP's record at both a local and national level; the particular issue of charges for homecare clearly damaging the SNP's chances. This proved to be a clever and astute move by Labour. However, what it also means is that one should be cautious in extrapolating too much from this result other than it helps feed the media's 'Brown bounce' narrative.

What of the Tories and Lib Dems? In what many thought was a tight two-horse race, these two parties saw their support squeezed and they suffered badly accordingly. Both the Tory and Lib Dem candidates lost their deposits after failing to win 5% of the vote. The only 'triumph' for the Conservatives was that they beat the Lib Dems to finish third but that is a pretty feeble consolation. The Tory revival under David Cameron continues to stop at Hadrian's Wall. The Lib Dems would have been disappointed to again finish 4th in a Scottish by-election and would be particularly perturbed to see their share of the vote fall 10% from the 2005 general election. Some are suggesting that there policy of spending cuts and tax cuts played badly in Glenrothes in contrast to Labour's pledge to increase spending on public services. This could be true in work-shy Scotland but if I was Clegg I wouldn't get rid of his policy just yet. But he does need to find some way of countering Brown's attempts at distorting their policy. Linking to Obama as Clegg did at PMQs on Wednesday might help.