The predictions of doom came from media pundits, Labour party activists and their political opponents too. All seemed to agree that Labour risked a dismal result in the Oldham bye-election, ranging from losing altogether, to losing half of its support, to defeating nearest rivals UKIP by a mere couple of thousand votes.
Whatever the outome, we were told, voters would take the chance to deliver the first electoral verdict on new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and that verdict would not be positive.
So the first thing to be said is that the result is a handsome boost for the under-fire Labour leader. He does not appear to be the dose of electoral poison which critics on all sides have tried to make out.
That verdict comes with caveats, however. It is possible that voters admire his principled stand over air strikes on Syria- despite the fact that his own shadow foreign secretary Hillary Benn spoke in opposition to that stand, in what was widely acknowledged as the best speech of this week's House of Commons debate. It is possible too that the electorate appreciate the new politics touted by the Corbyn camp - an honesty about internal debates culiminating in Mr Corbyn's decision to allow his MPs a free vote. It could be, as Mr Corbyn himself argues, that his forthright anti-austerity message is finding a ready audience, as similar arguments have done to an extent for the SNP in Scotland, and for anti-cuts parties in countries across Europe.
But caution is necessary. Bye-elections are not a good predictor of long term electoral performance, indeed, winning parties are often the beneficiaries of protest votes. Some fear, Labour is now more credible as a protest vote than a party of government, and this result leaves that question open.
There is reason to support the view that Labour might struggle to deliver such results at a more important election. Mr Corbyn's discipline problem at cabinet level, his own rhetorical weakness, the extreme positions expressed by some of his close colleagues, all of these could prove fatal to his leadership. In particular, history tells us that a divided party cannot win major elections.
Meanwhile the result will have left UKIP stinging. It has long nurtured hopes of a breakthrough in Labour's northern strongholds, but the party's divisive message made little progress with Oldham's electors.
Perhaps it is this that lies behind Nigel Farage's intemperate comments about alleged electoral fraud and a broken ballot process. If Mr Farage has evidence to back up his claims, he must present it to police. If not, he must cease such damaging slurs on the democratic process. In short the UKIP leader should put up or shut up.
But it was plain that Mr Corbyn's critics would have had a field day if the result for Labour had been poor.
Those critics, including those within his party, may have to revise their opinions. Some held his leadership would be over by Christmas, but this story may have longer to run than many of us thought.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel