By-Election Blues - Sorry, Greens

We are told, in suitably apocalyptic tones, that the sky has fallen in because of a by-election in Gorton and Denton. Labour down, Greens up, Reform up, Conservatives and Lib Dems barely visible. Cue the usual chorus about collapse, betrayal and historic turning points, as if a mid-term local contest were the constitutional equivalent of 1945.

Let us calm down. Governments two years in nearly always lose vote share in by-elections, particularly on middling turnout. Voters know the government is not going to fall, so they feel entirely free to register irritation without consequence. It is political horn-honking. It makes a noise, but it does not change the engine.

Starmer inherited high debt, high tax as a share of GDP, weak growth and bond markets that still have the September 2022 episode seared into memory. There is no secret vault of unused billions behind the Treasury sofa. The fiscal envelope is tight because the arithmetic is tight. Anyone who thinks a different Prime Minister can simply wish that away is indulging in magical thinking.

So what, precisely, do people expect a Reform or Green government to change that would materially improve things in short order? Reform can cut migration, but it cannot repeal demographics, labour shortages or debt interest payments. The Greens can borrow and invest more, but they cannot abolish market scrutiny or the need to service that borrowing. The constraints would remain, however loudly one denounced them on the campaign trail.

What we are seeing is not a sudden national conversion to alternative fiscal blueprints. It is impatience. Labour’s majority was built on a broad coalition united by a desire to eject the Conservatives. Broad churches win elections, but they are uncomfortable in office because delivery within constraints is necessarily incremental. When improvement is marginal rather than dramatic, voters conclude that not enough is changing.

The Greens’ surge in that seat reflects local credibility and tactical consolidation on the left. Reform’s rise reflects a similar consolidation of anti-system sentiment on the right once the Conservatives looked non-competitive. First past the post rewards that compression. Once voters think there is a viable challenger, they coalesce around it, not because they have studied every policy line, but because it feels like the sharpest instrument available.

Yes, the macro indicators may be edging in the right direction. Inflation down from its peak, real wages slowly improving, trade friction with the EU being eased at the margins. But voters do not live in aggregates; they live in monthly bills and service experiences. If life still feels tight, “moving in the right direction” sounds like an economist’s consolation prize rather than tangible relief.

From a spreadsheet perspective, swinging to Reform or the Greens does not loosen the fiscal constraints one inch. From a human perspective, it is a way of saying that the pace of change feels too slow and the benefits too abstract. That may be economically unsatisfying, but it is politically predictable.

The real risk for Labour is not that this by-election heralds immediate catastrophe. It is that statistical improvement fails to translate into lived improvement quickly enough. Until voters feel the difference rather than read about it, they will continue to tap the glass and demand something more dramatic, even if the laws of arithmetic remain stubbornly in place.