I blogged previously about the Sleaford by-election, predicting a Conservative win, a UKIP second, a Labour third or fourth, a LibDem third or fourth and a possible good result for a lady standing as “Lincolnshire Independent”. I said that, for me, the Labour and UKIP results would be the most interesting aspect of the contest. This was the actual result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleaford_and_North_Hykeham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

The 53.5% achieved by the Conservative candidate was in line with previous elections. Only in the Labour landslide of 1997 did the Conservative Party vote in Sleaford drop markedly and then only to 43.9%. The candidate in the by-election was a medical doctor (one of the most consistently trusted occupations), indeed a consultant paediatrician, as well as a woman following on from a perceived-as-arrogant male MP. From the party-political point of view, she was a good candidate.

The other candidates in the by-election were very much “also-rans”.

UKIP came second with a 13.5% vote. That is slightly below the 15.7% achieved at the 2015 General Election, which at the time was its best result by far. As I have been predicting elsewhere, UKIP generally has been failing to break through, its votes in both local and Westminster by-elections either dropping or just about holding up. The Sleaford result proves that UKIP made a big mistake in not following the Front National of France in going toward social nationalism, leaving UKIP as a wishy-washy and more nationalist form of Conservatism. The still fairly recent Batley and Spen by-election, when UKIP followed the Conservatives and LibDems in not standing a candidate (out of supposed “respect” for the assassinated Labour MP), showed UKIP’s sad desire to become a System party by aping the existing ones. Result? Ignominy and irrelevance. The Sleaford result bolsters my view that UKIP peaked in 2014 and is now washed-up as an insurgent force.

The Liberal Democrats achieved 11% in the by-election, above the 5.7% of the 2015 General Election and in line with previous elections (18.2% in both 2010 and 2005; 16.2% in 2001). Even taking into account the political sympathies of the coastal East Midlands, unsympathetic to the Liberal Democrats and their pro-EU, pro-mass immigration views, this shows that there is no Liberal Democrat resurgence. No-one in Sleaford voted LibDem as an alternative to either Conservative or Labour.

Labour’s result in the by-election was, at 10.2%, well  below its 2015 General Election vote (17.3%) and the similar 2010 result (16.9%). In 2005, Labour was on 26.5%; in 2001, 32% and in 1997, 34.3%. The direction of travel for Labour is unmistakable: Labour is going straight down. 34% to 10% in less than 20 years. To my way of thinking, the Sleaford by-election result mirrors what is happening in England generally (Labour already having been binned in Scotland). Labour is, even more than the other System parties, yesterday’s news. It offers almost nothing to people; and its medium-term future is as a niche party for about 20% of the electorate (public-sector employees, some ethnic minorities, some metro-liberals, some of those who are in trade unions, NGOs  etc). It may be that Sleaford Labour’s choice of candidate, a thick-sounding dustman or ex-dustman, did not help, but I doubt that anything would have helped Labour to do better.

The only thing left to say about the Sleaford by-election is that the lady standing as Linconshire Independent did (as I predicted) better than before. On previous occasions, her votes were 6.4% and then 5.2%. This time she managed 8.8%.

In summary: Conservatives coasting, UKIP stagnating, LibDems nowhere, Labour gone.

On Thursday 8 December, the by-election for the Westminster seat of Sleaford and North Hykeham will be held. Details about the constituency and its electoral history can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleaford_and_North_Hykeham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Conservative, Labour, UKIP and the Liberal Democrats are all putting up candidates and last time (2015) finished in that order. Marianne Overton, “Lincolnshire Independent”, is also standing. That last is more than the usual “Independent” joke or vanity candidate; she is an MBE-holder who, in 2015, received 3,233 votes (5.2%–only about 260 votes below the LibDem), saving her deposit. There are three other Independents standing (one with Green Party support) and the inevitable laugh-in candidates, this time the Bus Pass Elvis Party and the Monster Raving Loony Party.

This is a big test for UKIP, which in Sleaford started off in 2001 with about 1,000 votes, exceeded 2,000 in both 2005 and 2010 and peaked at nearly 10,000 in 2015, in third place, only about 900 votes short of Labour ( which itself came in second after the Conservative, who won having received nearly 35,000 votes). In 2010, UKIP finished in fifth place (after the Lincolnshire Independent).

UKIP has a lot to prove, after its recent downturns in local council by-elections and after the farcical circus of its leadership contests. My own prediction is that UKIP’s vote might hold up, in the absence of any alternative non-System party standing. However, I cannot see UKIP doing substantially better (if at all) than it did in 2015. A real social nationalist party might be able to run the Conservative close, but UKIP will not be able to do that or anything like it.

The Labour vote in Sleaford has shrunk from over 18,000 in 1997, through 15,000 and 14,000 in 2001 and 2005, to less than 11,000 in both 2010 and 2015. In view of Corbyn-Labour’s disastrous “policy” of having effectively no immigration control at all, I doubt whether Labour will do well. A startlingly bad result for Labour will surely be regarded as though a trumpet blast by the Angel of the Revelation: a wake-up call or a portent of upcoming oblivion.

The LibDems are probably facing a lost deposit unless they can persuade enough former LibDem voters, with some former Labour and Conservative voter support, to vote LD. In past elections, the LibDems did well, peaking in 2010 with 18.2%, but that was then. In 2015, their 5.7% reflected the party’s 5 years as a doormat for the Conservatives. Whether they can save their deposit and even retain fourth place is open, bearing in mind LD support for mass immigration and the EU, in a region generally anti-immigration and anti-EU; but it is an open question, the LibDems being the cockroach survivors of British politics.

The Conservative Party candidate will win. The only question is by how much.

For me, the interest in the by-election contest centres around Labour and UKIP. I think that UKIP will probably be able to beat Labour into third place. I also think it possible that Labour will find itself in fourth place. A by-election worth watching.

Update Note 9 December 2016: I shall be writing a separate blog post now that the Sleaford by-election is over. This was the result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleaford_and_North_Hykeham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

I write conscious that my understanding of internal Austrian politics is limited (though no worse, frankly, than that of most UK journalists and other commentators). However, this election is in some respects of more importance to wider Europe than it is to the Austrians themselves. I write also conscious of having only visited Austria a few times: a week in Vienna in the 1980s; a 2-day crossing by car from East to West, from Hungary to Germany, in 2001; some plane changes at Vienna Airport en route to or from Almaty, Kazakhstan in the 1990s.

This is not an electoral contest which has no wider effects. Austria, like Switzerland, is at the spiritual centre of Europe, as well as being in the geographical centre of both Europe and Central Europe.

The election comes at a moment when symbols matter as much as practicalities: the President of Austria has few powers, though one, the power to dissolve parliament and call a general election, may be key, in that, if elected, Norbert Hofer will be able to call such an election just at the moment when the Freedom Party (FPO) is in the ascendant. Austria would then have both President and Prime Minister from the Freedom Party.

The symbolism noted above relates to the wave of professed anti-System upsurges across the West: UK Brexit referendum, Trump’s egregious rise to power in the USA, Marine le Pen and Front National mounting a credible presidential election challenge in France; the referenda in Italy and the Netherlands. If Hofer can succeed (and the UK bookmakers had him odds-on yesterday, if that means anything), the balance of power tilts in Europe, in the EU. It would make a (far more important) Marine le Pen victory in 2017 more likely and that really might be a tipping-point for the EU and Europe.

The key points about Hofer are positive, as far as I am concerned. Hofer, like Marine le Pen, is in favour of stronger ties to Russia; he wants to protect Austria and wider Europe from Islamization via Muslim numbers, births and cultural influence; while Hofer seems not to have said much about Jewish Zionism (Austria having even less freedom of expression now than France or the UK), it is noteworthy that the Jews in Austria and abroad have come out openly against Hofer. Social nationalists will take the point and, if Austrian, vote accordingly! In other words and in general, Hofer seems to be singing from the right page.

A Europe and an EU with Hofer (et al) in Vienna and with Marine le Pen in Paris, with, beyond Europe itself (and despite my very considerable reservations) Trump in Washington D.C. and Putin in Moscow (Russia being neither European nor Asian but, in reality, sui generis), the world will be in a better place than it might have been.

I am writing before close of polling in Austria. Soon we shall know the result. May it be the right result.

Note: the above blog post was written and published only minutes before the news broke that Norbert Hofer and Freedom Party had lost the election. I have decided to leave it up in the interests of honesty and integrity. I got it wrong, but the reasoning was right. Freedom Party may still win the next general election if the cards fall in the right order.

It seems, at time of writing this update, that Norbert Hofer was voted for by about 47% of the Austrian voters who voted. That must presage well for Freedom Party, in that Hofer’s opponent was a catch-all candidate voted for not on his own merits (if any) but as an anti-Freedom Party figurehead. The next general election in Austria will be different.

In the end, the status quo has been maintained in Austria. This is no “anti-fascist” or “anti-Nazi” victory. It would have been better had Hofer won, but in the longer term, this result might actually be a good thing.