Labour holds South Shields as UKIP takes second

Lib Dems pushed into seventh place as Labour wins in David Miliband's old constituency.

The result has just been declared in South Shields, where, as expected, Labour comfortably held the seat vacated by David Miliband. Party sources had earlier suggested that they expected to poll in the "mid-40s" but in the event, Labour's vote share fell by just 1.5 per cent to 50.5 per cent.

The real story of the night, however, was UKIP's performance. The party finished second with 24 per cent of the vote, just four per cent short of its record performance in Eastleigh earlier this year. Given that it had no previous presence in the seat - it didn't even stand a candidate in 2010 - and that the campaign lasted just 17 days, this is a remarkable achievement, confirming its status as the new protest party of choice in all regions.

It was another disastrous by-election result for the Lib Dems, who lost their deposit and finished seventh, behind UKIP, the Tories, an independent, the Socialist Party and the BNP. The party received just 352 votes, only 155 more than the Monster Raving Loony Party and a vote share of just 1.4 per cent - its worst by-election result since 1948.

Most of the county councils don't begin counting until 8:30am tomorrow but early results suggest that Labour and UKIP will make significant gains, with the Tories suffering heavy losses.

Here's the South Shields result in full

Emma Lewell-Buck (Lab) 12,493 (50.51%, -1.51%)
Richard Elvin (UKIP) 5,988 (24.21%)
Karen Allen (Con) 2,857 (11.55%, -10.04%)
Ahmed Khan (Ind) 1,331 (5.38%)
Phil Brown (Ind Soc) 750 (3.03%)
Lady Dorothy MacBeth Brookes (BNP) 711 (2.87%, -3.65%)
Hugh Annand (Lib Dem) 352 (1.42%, -12.79%)
Howling Laud Hope (Loony) 197 (0.80%)
Thomas Darwood (Ind) 57 (0.23%)

Labour majority 6,505 (26.30%)
Electorate 62,979; Turnout 24,736 (39.28%, -18.42%)

Labour candidate Emma Lewell-Buck celebrates after winning the South Shields byelection Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.