Although polls indicated a Labour victory in the constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip was on the cards, the Conservative candidate Steve Tuckwell narrowly held on to the seat vacated by Boris Johnson, winning by 495 votes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66267672
That’s what happened in Boris Johnson’s old seat just over a week ago. Think about that. Labour had a 20 point lead in polls going back for months and could only put 5.9 because allegedly of ULEZ. No doubt that was a factor but we also know that voters often return to the fold, regardless of their party’s performance, if they sense a threat in an election from the other parties they are often voting primarily against.
Readers may remember Jackie Baillie suggesting that Glasgow SNP council’s ULEZ policy might damage the SNP in Rutherglen despite the fact that the Labour candidate is currently supporting the scheme, at least until his leader u-turns again.
Today, in the Herald, Tom Gordon writes:
Anas Sarwar household wealth in spotlight over £240,000 of dividends
and
Humza Yousaf faces byelection ‘thumping’ as SNP support evaporates
I can’t fault him on that apparent balance.
I can on his ‘evidence’ though, in the second headline.
What does he have?
‘Insiders believe’, ‘activists report’, ‘Labour sources’ and ‘one councillor.’
SFA? Surely at least the Labour sources will come out into the open?
What are the pollsters predicting for Rutherglen and Hamilton West in a General Election?
One month ago, Electoral Calculus had this.
In the 2019 General Election, the turnout was 66.5% but is unlikely to come close to that in a by-election. In the Dunfermline by-election of 2013 with another ‘shamed’ SNP MP, the turnout was only 42.65% while in the General Election of 2019, turnout was 69.8%.
If turnout drops by that extent in Rutherglen who will lose out? The Labour vote has long been known to be the softest in UK elections and a recent Panelbase poll has the SNP supporters more likely to vote, than those who selected Labour, by 88 to 83%.
So keeping all those reservations in mind and the pollsters’ failure in Uxbridge to recognise the strength of support that may resist media pressure to hold onto ‘their’ seat.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Margaret Ferrier MP, was wrong in her conduct at the start of the Covid pandemic. However, the way in which she has been treated by the media, by political opponents and by members of her own party is reminiscent of a lynch mob and of the original concept of the ‘scapegoat’.
Of course it was right that her conduct was investigated and that some kind of sanction was imposed. Several thousand private citizens were fined for similar misbehaviour.
But, compare how Johnson and Sunak and many of their party colleagues were treated for even more egregious behaviour – millions of pounds for speaking engagements, decoding Prime Minister, getting ‘honours’ and billets in the Lords.
Even if Jesus were to be the SNP candidate in Hamilton West and Rutherglen he would be smeared and excoriated by association with Ms Ferrier, whose misconduct as reported by the media is worse than the Yorkshire Ripper, Jimmy Savile, the Great Train Robbers.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I agree with you regarding how Ms Ferrier has been treated. The severity of her treatment goes beyond IMHO what is reasonable. The glee with which she personally and her seat is being pursued by Labour politicians outside a General Election campaign does the Labour Party little credit.
Here is a link to the relevant Committee on Standards report: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/news/194555/committee-on-standards-publishes-report-on-the-conduct-of-margaret-ferrier-mp/
The full Committee consisted of seven MPs and seven lay members. Two MPs – one Tory and one Labour – voted for a 30 day suspension as punishment for Ms Ferrier along with all lay members. So a majority of MPs supported the more lenient sanction.
The Tory MP Alberto Costa – someone I always regarded as a virulent opponent of everything the SNP stood for regarding Scotland’s constitutional position – proposed that the text of the Committee’s judgement be modified to include the following (empathic) statement:
‘Amendment proposed, in line 1, after “mitigating factors:” to insert “a) Ms Ferrier was a woman on her own in London, not her home city. There were no family or close friends to assist her. Her actions were not designed to enrich her or give her any form of benefit in kind. Her behaviour and judgement was directly affected by her distress and panic in her health condition and loneliness;”.— (Alberto Costa.)’
This was defeated by seven voters to five. Amongst MPs, ONLY THE LABOUR MEMBER VOTED AGAINST Costa’s amendment.
The senior Tory MP Sir Bernard Jenkin brought this statement to a vote in the Committee:
‘In arriving at the decision on sanction, the Committee has had to take account of the effect of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. The recommended sanction, if approved by the House, will trigger the possibility of recall. WE BELIEVE THE OPERATION OF THE ACT REQUIRES REVIEW.’ The Committee members – including ALL MPs – voted eight to four in support of his statement. (my emphasis)
I contend – without wishing to understate the seriousness and foolishness of Ms Ferrier’s action – that the FULLER information on the Committee’s deliberations shows matters in a somewhat different light but one that will not be shone by the media and so one that may not be seen by the voters in Rutherglen.
A nine day suspension as punishment was proposed by Alberto Costa, the Tory MP. He was supported by other senior Tories, Sir Bernard Jenkin and Sir Charles Walker. Notably all three were prominent in the Committee of Privileges recent and intensive investigation of Boris Johnson’s alleged misleading of Parliament over parties during lockdown. Perhaps these senior Tories – putting partisan party politics aside – have shown a better sense of perspective! The SNP MP Allan Dorrans also supported a nine day suspension.
Twelve committee members voted on this: the split was 4 for and 8 against the nine day suspension.
LikeLiked by 2 people
GE higher turnout than by-elections.
GE in the Spring. Beware of con men bearing gifts.
LikeLiked by 1 person