By-elections: a good night for Labour, a very bad one for the Lib Dems

Labour secured comfortable victories in yesterday's three by-elections, while the Lib Dems finished eighth in Rotherham.

Despite fear of another Bradford West-style upset, Labour comfortably won all three of yesterday's by-elections, in Rotherham, Middlesborough and Croydon North, retaining each seat on an increased share of the vote. But the real story of the night was how well UKIP performed and how poorly the Lib Dems did. Aided by the child fostering row, Nigel Farage's party finished second in Rotherham, winning 21.79 per cent of vote, up from 5.9 per cent in 2010 and its best-ever result in a Westminster seat. UKIP also came second in Middlesbrough and third in Croydon North.

By contrast, it was another terrible set of results for the Lib Dems. The party finished eighth in Rotherham (behind the BNP, Respect, the English Democrats and an independent), the worst result any major party has suffered since 1945, and lost its deposit after winning just 2.11 per cent of the vote. It also lost its deposit in Croydon North, where it finished fourth (behind UKIP) and won 3.5 per cent of the vote. The Tories also performed poorly, finishing fifth in Rotherham (behind UKIP, the BNP and Respect), the party's worst performance in any by-election in this parliament, and fourth in Middlesbrough (behind UKIP and the Lib Dems).

Having talked up its chances in Rotherham and Croydon North, Respect didn't come close to threatening Labour. Indeed, in the latter, the party actually lost its deposit after Lee Jasper, Ken Livingstone's former equalities adviser, finished sixth with 2.9 per cent of the vote. Respect performed better in Rotherham, where it fielded Yvonne Ridley, a former journalist who converted to Islam after her capture by the Taliban, and finished fourth with 8.34 per cent.

Given the disadvantages faced by Labour in Rotherham - Denis MacShane's resignation over false invoices, a divided local party, and, most recently, the UKIP fostering row - the party will be pleased that it managed to increase its share of the vote from 44.6 per cent to 46.25 per cent, a swing of 6.5 per cent from the Tories, who finished second in 2010. Few ever expected Labour to lose any of the six by-elections held this month but that the party performed well in each case is firm evidence of its increasing strength.

Sarah Champion, the newly-elected Labour MP for Rotherham. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The government has admitted it can curb drugs without criminalising users

Under the Psychoactive Substances Act it will not be a criminal offence for someone to possess for their own consumption recreational drugs too dangerous to be legally sold to the public.

From Thursday, it may be illegal for churches to use incense. They should be safe from prosecution though, because, as the policing minister was forced to clarify, the mind-altering effects of holy smells aren’t the intended target of the Psychoactive Substances Act, which comes into force this week.

Incense-wafters aren’t the only ones wondering whether they will be criminalised by the Act. Its loose definition of psychoactive substances has been ridiculed for apparently banning, among other things, flowers, perfume and vaping.

Anyone writing about drugs can save time by creating a shortcut to insert the words “the government has ignored its advisors” and this Act was no exception. The advisory council repeatedly warned the government that its definition would both ban things that it didn’t mean to prohibit and could, at the same time, be unenforcable. You can guess how much difference these interventions made.

But, bad though the definition is – not a small problem when the entire law rests on it – the Act is actually much better than is usually admitted.

Under the law, it will not be a criminal offence for someone to possess, for their own consumption, recreational drugs that are considered too dangerous to be legally sold to the public.

That sounds like a mess, and it is. But it’s a mess that many reformers have long advocated for other drugs. Portugal decriminalised drug possession in 2001 while keeping supply illegal, and its approach is well-regarded by reformers, including the Liberal Democrats, who pledged to adopt this model in their last manifesto.

This fudge is the best option out of what was politically possible for dealing with what, until this week, were called legal highs.

Before the Act, high-street shops were free to display new drugs in their windows. With 335 head shops in the UK, the drugs were visible in everyday places – giving the impression that they couldn’t be that dangerous. As far as the data can be trusted, it’s likely that dozens of people are now dying each year after taking the drugs.

Since legal highs were being openly sold and people were thought to be dying from them, it was obvious that the government would have to act. Until it did, every death would be blamed on its inaction, even if the death rate for users of some newly banned drugs may be lower than it is for those who take part in still-legal activities like football. The only question was what the government would do.

The most exciting option would have been for it to incentivise manufacturers to come up with mind-altering drugs that are safe to take. New Zealand is allowing drug makers to run trials of psychoactive drugs, which could eventually – if proved safe enough – be sold legally. One day, this might change the world of drug-taking, but this kind of excitement was never going to appeal to Theresa May’s Home Office.

What was far more plausible was that the government would decide to treat new drugs like old ones. Just as anyone caught with cocaine or ecstasy faces a criminal record, so users of new drugs could have been hit with the same. This was how legal highs have been treated up until now when one was considered serious enough to require a ban.

But instead, the government has recognised that its aim – getting new drugs out of high-street shop windows so they don’t seem so normal – didn’t depend on criminalising users. A similar law in Ireland achieved precisely this. To its credit, the government realised it would be disproportionate to make it a criminal offence to possess the now-illegal highs.

The reality of the law will look chaotic. Users will still be able to buy new drugs online – which could open them to prosecution for import – and the law will do nothing to make drugs any safer. Some users might now be exposed to dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous other drugs. There will be few prosecutions and some head shop owners might try to pick holes in the law: the government seems to have recognised that it needed a better definition to have any chance of making the law stick.

But, most importantly for those of us who think the UK’s drug laws should be better at reducing the damage drugs cause, the government, for the first time, has decided that a class of recreational drugs are too dangerous to be sold but that it shouldn’t be a crime to possess them. The pressure on the government to act on legal highs has been relieved, without ordinary users being criminalised. For all the problems with the new law, it’s a step in the right direction.

Leo Barasi is a former Head of Communications at the UK Drug Policy Commission. He writes in a personal capacity