Unless there was some sort of upset it was almost inevitable that Labour would win the Holborn and St Pancras by-election which was forced when former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer decided to step down from the House of Commons. Despite putting up a questionable individual Sagal Abdi-Waliwith who had a very questionable record as a local authority cabinet member, Labour managed to fight off a very strong challenge from they Greens who were represented by their leader and chief Tit Whisperer, Zack Polanski. Labour got 45.2% of the vote this time a drop of about 3.5%.
Without the local far leftist Andrew Feinstein standing, who came in second place in 2024, it was the Greens who were the major challengers to Labour and in this contest got 38.%. However this was still good enough to present a strong challenge to Labour.
The Conservative Party and the Reform Party managed to keep their deposits by getting 7.1% and 5.9% respectively. I’m surprised that Reform did so well in this seat as it’s not a seat that resembles any of the areas where Reform has done well. Maybe the reason for Reform not losing their deposit is an ‘a plague on all your houses’ view among some voters?
The Liberal Democrats couldn’t convince enough people that their party name isn’t a Trades Description Act offence and managed to get 3.4% or 924 votes. This put them in the zone for losing their electoral deposit. I might have thought that the Lib Dems could have done better in this contest as they might have been able to appeal to those who were wary of the increasingly extreme Greens but who didn’t want to endorse Labour.
Also in the undercard and lost deposit territory were the Restore Britain party who only managed to get 692 votes. It has also been alleged by sources used by Wikipedia that the Restore Britain candidate Tyler Johnson, is closely associated with a Chinese oil company that is sanctioned by the United States of America. Wiki also alleges, but provides no link, that Johnson’s nomination papers for this contest was signed by a member of the National Housing Party, a group that in my view is little more than a club for British National Party rejects and who is a proponent of lunatic ‘Jewish plot against Britain’ narratives. If this information is true then it shows that the political commentator Peter North is correct when he says that Restore Britain are filled with ‘grotbags’ whose primary interest is not the British nation but their festering hatred of Jews. One consolation for Restore Britain is that on this occasion they managed to get more votes than the Monster Raving Loony Party who got 87 votes.
The undercard of this contest also contained among others the ‘Commie Twat In The Hat’ George Galloway. His Workers Party, which in reality is merely an Islamic party with a dash of Leftism, got less than half of the votes, 314, that Restore got. There was also not much enthusiasm for the Rejoin EU Party that limped in as the last of the minor parties to beat the Monster Raving Loony Party by getting 236 votes.
Now we get into the ‘who got less votes than the Monster Raving Loony Party’ territory. In his category falls the Christian Peoples Alliance on 63 votes, The Climate Party and the remnants of UKIP who both got 51 votes. The UK Voice party, which is absolutely tiny, got 23 votes whilst the Communist League managed to achieve only 9 people voting for them which shows that clearly there is no desire for the return to a world of Gulags and bread queues among the residents of Holborn and St Pancras. The final result on the election results list was an independent named Tom Darwood who got 7 votes.
This particular contest was afflicted by a very bad turnout. Only 38.8% of eligible voters could be arsed to turn out and vote. It was down by 15% since the seat was last fought and although it’s expected that turnouts in by-elections to be less than in General Elections, this was a marked drop especially when you consider the high profile nature of this contest and who held the seat previously.
The Labour candidate has been elected by a majority of a minority of potential voters. This means that this seat is now occupied by someone who was not put there by a majority of the electors of Holborn and St Pancras but put there only by those who could be bothered to vote. Turnout matters. If we don’t turn out and vote then we will be represented by those chosen by extremists or our enemies or by those who have agendas that might not be good for the majority.
Links and background
Previous article from me about the Labour candidate
Wiki on the Holborn and St Pancras by-election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Holborn_and_St_Pancras_by-election
Peter North on Restore Britain
https://www.northernvariant.co.uk/p/restore-britain-the-partys-over
Dr Richard North’s piece on this election which is excellent
https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/front-page/politics-holborn-and-st-pancras/
Be the first to comment on "A not unexpected result. Labour hold Holborn and St Pancras."