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

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.