Some brief, slightly belated observations on the by-election result at Inverclyde in which Labour did better than many would have expected, but which confirms a trend that should concern Labour’s UK leaders.

On the predictably lower turnout Labour held its share of the vote from the 2010 General Election. Although Labour lost that election in the UK, the late David Cairns had, against the UK trend, increased his vote, share and majority from 2005 when the current boundaries came into force.

This was undoubtedly a good performance for Labour and, coming after a Scottish Parliament General Election nothing short of catastrophic for Labour all the more so.  It wasn’t a bad performance by the SNP who gathered the bulk of anti-Labour votes. Isolated performances in by-elections mean very little – they are complicated by many factors. In this instance the former MP had a reputation as a decent man and a diligent constituency representative. While this doesn’t guarantee anything for a successor it is clearly more helpful to the defending party than if its late representative was known as an indolent crook who neglected the patch. Labour’s candidate looked credible, the council local leader but not for long enough to make many big mistakes and he also had a proper job.

Q. So what does it mean for Labour in Scotland in the longer term? A. Nothing much*.

Labour’s claims, in keeping with the cross party tradition of post by-election spin, grossly exaggerate the importance of this result. Yes, it was a good result for Labour but with worrying signs in the confirmation of a trend from the English local elections, the Scottish General Election and recent by-elections in England.

At Inverclyde the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed as it had behind a smokescreen of tactical voting at Oldham East and Saddleworth, was self-evident at Barnsley, widespread in urban England and throughout Scotland in May. The beneficiary of the collapse differs from place to place. Where Labour is viable as an alternative vote – either because it is the alternative council leadership, where it has effective local representatives or where it is the natural protest vote against the Government, Labour benefits from the defection of anti-Tory Liberal Democrats. But Labour is by no means the automatic beneficiary of the Liberal democrat collapse. Where an alternative to Labour viable under first past the post exists then Labour gains a great deal less. Be that the SNP or the Green Party in Brighton or Norwich an alternative positioned to the left of centre with a plausible chance under first past the post stands to pick up not only the anti-Tory Liberal Democrats but also the anti-politics element that the Liberal Democrats have always courted. Elsewhere, where Labour struggles to trouble the scorers (like much of south east, south west and eastern England) the Liberal Democrats held more of their vote as the only alternative to the Conservatives seen to be viable.

This illustrates Labour’s current problem. The party may be able to bring home former supporters who had moved to a Liberal Democrat brand positioned to Labour’s left, and may be able to mobiles protest votes in low turnout elections, but it is not doing so in the numbers necessary to suggest a serious challenge for Government. Neither has it convinced a broad enough coalition that its critique of the Government is convincing, its alternative is either plausible or attractive or that its brand is a preferred choice where it matters – north or south of the border.

Labour still has a very long way to go.

* The Scottish Parliament seat, Greenock and Inverclyde, is based on the boundaries of the former Westminster seat of the same name, which is part of the current Inverclyde. Electorally the differences seem marginal. Even allowing for an element of mid-term movement against the UK governing party it is evident that the SNP have been doing better and Labour worse in Scottish Parliament elections than in Westminster elections for some time now. In the case of Greenock and Inverclyde Labour has consistently polled in the low 40% range at Scottish General Elections and in the low 50% range at UK General Elections. The SNP got within 511 votes of winning in May (on a similar turnout) – while an upset was certainly possible given the above pattern it was rather unlikely, but trends are only trends until they are reversed – it impossible to conclude from a single by-election whether this pattern of differential voting will continue.

The full result, for the record:

Labour:   15,118 (58.3%) -2-2%

SNP:         9,280 (33.0%) +15.5%

Tory:       2,784 (9.9%) -2.1%

LibDem: 627 (2.2%) -11.1%

UKIP:     288 (1.0%) -0.2%

Maj:    5,838 (20.8%) -17.6%

Turnout: 45.4% (-18%)