The news that Labour MP Jamie Reed is to stand down in Copeland, his Lake District constituency in February 2017 has probably soured the mood at some Labour Xmas gatherings. Thrice elected Reed had a thin majority of just 2,564 over his Conservative challenger since the 2015 general election. UKIP came 3rd in the seat which encompasses the towns of Whitehaven and Keswick whilst extending down the Cumbrian coast as far as Millom. Although overwhelmingly rural nowadays, it used to be a big coal mining and industrial area. Unemployment is low at 4% but it has a large retired population at 19% which helps to explain the popularity of UKIP and why the area voted to leave the EU by 62%
Here’s a breakdown of the constituencies demographic from UK Polling report.
Reed has gone to join one of the areas main employers, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL). Why has he gone now? It could well be because he knows his seat is at risk to the Tories under Jeremy Corbyn, who he’s always opposed as Labour leader. And there’s the rub for his party. Corbyn opposes both nuclear power and Trident. Who are the two biggest employers in the area? BNFL and BAE systems shipyard in nearby Barrow in Furness! You get the picture…
This could get to be a very interesting contest as all traditional bets are off after Brexit. But how will Brexit influence the result. No-one knows. The resurgent Lib-Dems have never done well in the area so have nothing to lose by standing on a Strong pro EU platform. They won’t win the seat but no-one else is offering anything to the folks who feel disenfranchised by Labour’s volte face to support Brexit. They’re looking for a home and a voice. And what about Bregetters? There’s growing evidence that this phenomenon exists now there’s no good economic news coming out of the result to leave the EU – nor is there likely to be, and the region did very well out of EU farming subsidies and other grants.
On the other side we have UKIP. If they haven’t gone bankrupt by then (they were due to pay 172,000 euros back to the EU today) will this week’s leader, Paul Nuttall throw his hat into the ring as their candidate?
In truth, I suspect the more likely result is that the Tories could wrest control, which would be a disaster for Corbyn as the constituency has been Labour since 1935. Copeland is a long way from Westminster and a world away from Corbyn’s North London constituency. If the Tories put up a strong local candidate things could get very interesting…
Paul Bigland 
The forthcoming Copeland by-election is likely to supply a repeat experience demonstrating how the present voting system (used for Westminster Parliamentary elections) ill-serves the UK’s electorate and actively promotes a fast disappearing mirage of British democratic credibility.
Single Member Plurality (or First Past the Post [FPTP] as it’s more widely known) only functions efficiently in a two party arena – add a third credible challenger into the equation and FPTP’s inherently fatal flaws are exposed, yet Britain hasn’t resembled an effective two party environment for 60 years and counting when two successive elections saw approx 95% of the electorate vote for Conservative/Labour (or their antecedents) candidates and a combination of both parties secured similar seat shares in the ensuing Parliaments.
Fast forward to 2016 and two recent Parliamentary by-elections provide us with contrasting and consequently illuminating outcomes; Richmond Park and Sleaford & North Hykeham. In the former an alliance of “progressive” elements pragmatically collaborated to oust a wretched Conservative incumbent, supposedly re-standing as an Independent although the Labour leadership’s failure to grasp simple logic threatened to scupper this strategy. In the latter, potential “progressive” collaboration disintegrated into the usual array of also run suspects allowing the Conservatives to easily retain the seat.
What lessons do post 1950s British electoral history and these particular by-election results offer us?
Very simple – in a multi-party, multi faceted democratic political arena characterised by complex and nuanced choices, plurality (the candidate with the most votes wins) voting is spectacularly dysfunctional, no longer fit for purpose, past its sell by date or any other negative descriptive allegory you might wish to employ! Let me very candid here – I don’t belong to any political party, have no intention of joining one anytime soon and I’ve also voted for a variety of party candidates over the last forty years or so.
I’m a ‘small d’ democrat plain and simple – I believe in the role of democracy, flaws and all, as a bulwark against intolerance, bigotry and narrow minded populism. I voted Remain on 23rd June (I also voted to stay in the EEC in June 1975) but I accept the validity of the EU Referendum result, even though I remain convinced (and subsequent events have only reinforced my viewpoint) that a clear majority of UK inhabitants will be materially disadvantaged by the UK revoking its membership of the EU
British democracy needs diversity, it needs inclusivity but above all it desperately needs a voting system capable of offering real choice in the privacy of the polling booth, and through that choice power and influence, to the only party who should matter in any public election – THE VOTER!
FPTP continues to fail British voters; for British democracy to flourish it needs to go but it appears the focus of 99% is all too easily distracted by the impact of policy outcomes rather than the seminal process of power acquisition itself?