Labour triumphs in Corby by-election

Party wins seat from the Conservatives, while Lib Dems finish fourth behind the UK Independence Party.

Labour has just been declared the winner of the Corby by-election, gaining a seat from the Conservatives for the first time in such a contest since Wirral South in February 1997. The swing from the Tories was 12.8 per cent, around five points larger than that currently shown by the national opinion polls.

The Conservatives are dismissing the result as the kind of mid-term defeat that governments always suffer, but it's still notable that Corby has voted for the winning party in every general election since 1983. Labour has performed well enough for Ed Miliband to claim that he has a good chance of becoming the next prime minister. Turnout was a respectable 44.8 per cent, down from 69.2 per cent in 2010.

It was another disastrous by-election for the Lib Dems, who finished a poor fourth to Ukip and lost their deposit.

Here's the result.

Labour 17,267 votes 48.4% (+9.8%)

Conservative 9,476 votes 26.6% (-15.6%)

UK Independence Party 5,108 votes 14.3% (N/A)

Liberal Democrats 1,770 votes 5% (-9.5%)

British National Party 614 votes 1.7% (-3%)

Green Party 378 votes 1.1% (N/A)

 

Labour majority 7,791 (21.8%)

Turnout 35,665 votes 44.8%

We'll have more reaction and analysis on The Staggers shortly.

Labour leader Ed Miliband at the Labour conference in Manchester earlier this year. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Free movement isn't free: the truth about EU immigration

The UK does not need to leave the single market to restrict European migration - it already can.

In the Brext negotiations, the government has unashamedly prioritised immigration control over the economy. The UK must leave the single market, ministers say, in order to restrict free movement. For decades, they lament, European immigration has been "uncontrolled", making it impossible to meet the government's target of reducing net migration to "tens of thousands" a year.

It's worth noting that non-EU immigration alone (which ministers can limit) remains more than ten times this level (owing to the economic benefits). But more importantly, liberals and conservatives alike talk of "free movement" as if it is entirely free - it isn't.

Though EU citizens are initially permitted to live in any member state, after three months they must prove that they are working (employed or self-employed), a registered student or have "sufficient resources" (savings or a pension) to support themselves and not be "a burden on the benefits system". Far from being unconditional, then, the right to free movement is highly qualified.

The irony is that the supposedly immigration-averse UK has never enforced these conditions. Even under Theresa May, the Home Office judged that the cost of recording entry and exit dates was too high. Since most EU migrants are employed (and contribute significantly more in taxes than they do in benefits), there was no economic incentive to do so.

For some Brexiteers, of course, a job is not adequate grounds for an immigrant to remain. But even beyond implementing existing law, there is potential for further reform of free movement - even within the single market.

As Nick Clegg recently noted, shortly after the referendum, "a number of senior EU figures" were exploring a possible trade-off: "a commitment by the UK to pursue the least economically disruptive Brexit by maintaining participation in the single market and customs union, in return for a commitment to the reform of freedom of movement, including an 'emergency brake' on unusually high levels of intra-EU immigration." Liechtenstein, a member of the single market, has recently imposed quotas on EU migrants.

Yet with some exceptions, these facts are rarely heard in British political debate. Many Labour MPs, like their Conservative counterparts, support single market withdrawal to end free movement. The unheard truth that it isn't "free" could yet lead the UK to commit an avoidable act of economic self-harm.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496