Holborn and St Pancras by-election

Holborn and St Pancras by-electionZack Polanski by-election resultSagal Abdi-Wali wins HolbornGreen Party leader defeatedHolborn St Pancras election resultsStarmer former seat by-electionPolanski Zionism motion GreensLabour Green swing HolbornAndy Burnham first electoral testHolborn by-election turnout 38.8first past the post Greens

LONDON — Labour has won the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, with Camden council leader Sagal Abdi-Wali taking 12,292 votes, or 45.2%, and defeating Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who secured 8,928 votes, or 32.8%. The majority was 3,364. Turnout was 38.8%, with 27,211 votes cast — sharply below the 54.1% recorded at the 2024 general election.

The immediate verdict is simple: Labour held a seat it has controlled since 1983, and Prime Minister Andy Burnham avoided beginning his premiership with a symbolic defeat in the constituency of his predecessor. The more important verdict is less comfortable. A Green campaign led personally by Polanski moved the party’s vote share up by roughly 22 percentage points and produced an estimated 13-point swing from Labour, yet first-past-the-post translated that advance into no seat at all.

Abdi-Wali, 42, came to Britain as a child refugee from Somalia and now moves from leading Camden council to representing the borough at Westminster. In her victory speech, she said she hoped people with backgrounds like hers would feel that they “belong here”. Her conclusion — “This is Camden, and this is Britain” — placed identity and civic membership at the center of a result that had become entangled with arguments about migration, political language and community cohesion. She warned that cohesion must not be “casually undone”.

The result in full

Holborn St Pancras election results: Labour first, Greens close the gap

Among the five principal candidates reported, Labour’s Sagal Abdi-Wali won 12,292 votes and 45.2%. Polanski finished second on 8,928 and 32.8%. Conservative Ewan Cameron came third with 1,922 votes, or 7.1%; Reform UK’s Peter Newman was fourth with 1,612, or 5.9%; and the Liberal Democrats took 924, or 3.4%, losing their deposit because they finished below the 5% threshold.

The supplied totals for those five candidates add to 25,678, while the reported number of votes cast is 27,211. Their listed shares add to 94.4%. That gap means these headline figures should not be mistaken for a complete candidate-by-candidate official return: other candidates and any rejected ballots would need to account for the remainder. It does not affect the winner, the runner-up or the 3,364 majority, but it is an important distinction when describing the result as “in full”.

Turnout fell by 15.3 percentage points from 54.1% in 2024 to 38.8%. In practical terms, more than six in ten registered electors did not cast a ballot. By-elections routinely attract fewer voters than general elections, but that does not make the decline meaningless. It narrows the electorate on which every claim of momentum rests and makes superior organization — locating supporters, persuading them and getting them to polling stations — more influential.

Labour’s hold also extended a deep institutional record. The party has represented the seat and its predecessor arrangements continuously since 1983. Frank Dobson served for 32 years; Starmer followed for 11. That history did not guarantee victory, particularly in a low-turnout contest against a nationally known challenger, but it gave Labour the durable local networks and familiarity that insurgent campaigns must overcome.

Palace of Westminster, where Sagal Abdi-Wali will sit after winning the Holborn and St Pancras by-election
The Palace of Westminster, where Sagal Abdi-Wali will represent Holborn and St Pancras after Labour’s by-election victory. Photo: Diliff, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Why this matters

Burnham’s first electoral test ended in a win — but not a clean bill of health

This was the first electoral test of Andy Burnham’s premiership. Governments do not usually celebrate retaining one of their safest historical seats, yet the political risk here was unusually high. Starmer had resigned as an MP in September, six weeks after standing down as prime minister. Losing his former constituency immediately afterward would have allowed opponents to describe the change at Downing Street as a collapse in Labour authority rather than an orderly succession.

Burnham avoided that outcome. He can point to a Labour MP returned under pressure, a locally rooted candidate elected, and a national party machine that did what was required. But the 45.2% winning share and the large movement toward the Greens deny Labour an argument that voters simply reverted to habit. The seat stayed Labour; a substantial block of its electorate used the by-election to register discontent on the left.

A battle for the British left, not merely a two-candidate race

The contest exposed a broader competition over voters who want stronger intervention on housing, utilities, climate policy and inequality. Labour governs nationally and retains the advantage of incumbency, organization and the electoral credibility that comes with winning constituencies. The Greens, under Polanski, are trying to convert sharper positions into a larger urban coalition. His Holborn campaign emphasized rent controls, nationalizing Thames Water and keeping oil and gas in the ground.

The argument is complicated by fragmentation beyond the two leading parties. The wider left includes the divided Your Party project and other independent or movement-based campaigns competing for many of the same dissatisfied voters. No Your Party vote figure appears in the reported principal results here, so this by-election cannot measure its direct strength. It can, however, show the strategic danger: if anti-government voters split among Greens, independents and a fractured new party, Labour may hold seats even while its share falls; if one challenger consolidates that vote, constituencies once treated as safe can become competitive.

A 13-point swing that wins nothing is a first-past-the-post lesson

A roughly 13% Labour-to-Green swing would be transformative if reproduced across enough closely contested seats. In Holborn and St Pancras it still left Polanski 3,364 votes short. That is not a contradiction. Swing measures movement between parties; first-past-the-post rewards only the candidate who finishes first in each constituency. A party can gain dramatically in vote share, finish a strong second and add nothing to its parliamentary representation.

For Green strategists, the result strengthens the case for concentrating resources where the party can plausibly become the main challenger rather than celebrating evenly distributed national gains. For supporters of electoral reform, it is another exhibit in the case against first-past-the-post. Defenders of the system will answer that constituency elections are designed to produce one representative with a clear local plurality, not to convert each party’s national vote proportionally. The result supports both descriptions: the Greens demonstrated substantial support, and Labour won the only prize the rules award.

Context: how the Starmer former seat by-election became a leadership test

Starmer’s resignation and Burnham’s succession changed the stakes

The vacancy followed an unusually compressed political transition. Starmer resigned his Commons seat in September, six weeks after leaving the premiership. Burnham’s succession meant a central London constituency that had been associated with the former prime minister for 11 years became the first place where voters could deliver a formal verdict on the new national order.

By-elections are imperfect national barometers. Local candidates matter, turnout changes and protest votes become cheaper when government itself is not being chosen. Yet parties treat them as tests because they concentrate attention and resources. A defeat can become a story about national momentum; a hold can deny opponents that story even when the underlying numbers carry warnings.

Polanski’s rise made second place more consequential

Polanski did not arrive as a low-profile local challenger. As Green Party leader, he attached his own authority to the contest and brought a national platform to policies designed to distinguish the party from Labour. That raised the ceiling of attention and the cost of defeat. A candidate who increases the Green share by about 22 points can claim expansion; a leader who fails to win a high-profile target can still face questions about judgment and route to power.

The Zack Polanski by-election result therefore contains two truths. It is an unusually strong Green performance in a seat Labour has held for more than four decades. It is also a defeat for the party leader after a campaign that encouraged supporters to imagine an upset. Which truth dominates will depend less on Friday’s rhetoric than on whether the party can reproduce the advance elsewhere.

Zack Polanski, the Green Party leader, at a London event in 2025
Zack Polanski at EartH in Hackney, London, in a file photograph. Photo: via Wikimedia Commons

Who benefits, who loses and what critics say

Sagal Abdi-Wali wins Holborn — and defines the victory on her terms

Abdi-Wali is the clearest beneficiary. She becomes an MP with a personal story that reaches beyond party arithmetic: a former child refugee from Somalia, now 42 and leader of Camden council, elected to represent part of central London. Her victory speech argued that this trajectory was evidence of belonging, not an exception to it. That framing also answered attacks on her background without allowing those attacks to define her campaign.

In early September, Reform UK home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf posted a challenge centered on the fact that the frontrunner “was born in Somalia”. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds called the intervention “straightforward racism”. Yusuf’s supporters can argue that birthplace and migration are legitimate subjects in a political debate focused on national policy; Reynolds and Labour’s position is that singling out a candidate’s birthplace in that way crosses from policy criticism into prejudice. Abdi-Wali’s response was to emphasize both Camden and Britain, and to warn against casually undoing community cohesion.

Burnham gains breathing room; the Greens gain a momentum argument

Burnham’s benefit is defensive but real. He avoids a first defeat, keeps a historic Labour seat and can argue that the party held together under a direct Green challenge. Abdi-Wali’s local credentials also let Labour present the win as more than a national brand exercise.

The Greens did not win, but they leave with evidence that their pitch can move votes in a dense, progressive urban constituency. Calling the swing an “incredible result” is partisan interpretation, not a neutral description, but it is grounded in a real rise of roughly 22 points. If that movement can be retained between elections, repeated in comparable seats and translated into first-place finishes, it would represent meaningful momentum. The condition matters: second place alone does not deliver representation.

Green Party leader defeated as internal questions sharpen

Polanski said he would not resign, adding that remaining in place after a loss is “what leaders do”. He insisted that standing was not a mistake and left open the possibility of contesting another parliamentary seat where he has “a connection with”. Those statements seek to frame the campaign as party-building rather than a one-shot gamble.

Critics will ask whether the leader chose a target that offered publicity but insufficient path to victory, and whether his personal candidacy distracted from pressure elsewhere. Supporters will answer that a leader willing to contest difficult terrain helped turn a safe-seat assumption into a serious race. The next set of local and parliamentary contests will test which reading has more force.

Polanski Zionism motion Greens dispute adds pressure beyond the ballot

The result landed days after the Green conference passed a motion declaring Zionism is racism. Polanski skipped the vote to campaign in Holborn and has faced questions about how he handled the issue. Former Green leader Caroline Lucas called the motion “flawed from top to bottom”. Asked about Polanski’s future, she said: “Let’s see what happens in the coming days and weeks.” Burnham described the motion as “terrible judgement”.

Supporters of the conference motion argue that Zionism should be judged through the experience of Palestinians and the structures of power associated with Israeli policy. Critics argue that defining an entire political tradition as racist collapses important distinctions, risks hostility toward Jewish people and damages the Greens’ claim to inclusive politics. The by-election does not settle that argument, and no vote breakdown can isolate its electoral effect. It does ensure that Polanski’s leadership will be judged on both electoral strategy and his response to a divisive decision taken by his party.

Conservatives, Reform and Liberal Democrats were marginal to the main contest

The Conservatives’ 7.1% and Reform UK’s 5.9% left both parties far behind Labour and the Greens. Reform cleared the 5% deposit threshold on the reported share; the Liberal Democrats, on 3.4%, did not. For the Conservatives, third place in a former prime minister’s constituency confirms how difficult parts of central London have become. For Reform, the result offers limited evidence of a foothold but not a breakthrough, while the controversy over Yusuf’s intervention may have constrained the party’s ability to broaden its appeal.

The Liberal Democrat result is the starkest organizational setback: 924 votes and a lost deposit in a highly visible contest. Yet all three smaller parties can reasonably note that tactical voting likely compressed their support when the race was framed as Labour versus the Green leader. That is a plausible explanation, not a proven measurement.

What the numbers actually imply

Turnout changes the size of the mandate, not the validity of the win

Abdi-Wali’s 12,292 votes were sufficient under the rules and produced an unambiguous plurality. Low turnout does not invalidate that. It does limit claims about the entire constituency. With only 38.8% participating, Labour’s 45.2% share equates to support from substantially less than half of all eligible electors. The same caution applies more strongly to every losing party.

The 15.3-point fall from 2024 may reflect the absence of a general-election government choice, voter fatigue after a rapid national transition, confidence that Labour would hold, or disengagement from the available alternatives. The published figures do not allow those explanations to be separated. Polling, ward-level returns and voter interviews would be needed before assigning a cause.

The majority is meaningful, but it is not impregnable

A 3,364-vote majority is enough to prevent a recount-scale dispute and to give Abdi-Wali a clear entry to Parliament. It is also small enough to make future campaigns competitive. If turnout rises at a general election, both parties must find new voters rather than assume the by-election electorate simply scales upward. Labour needs to recover people who lent their vote to the Greens or stayed home; the Greens need to retain protest voters when control of government is at stake.

The approximately 13-point swing summarizes movement between Labour and Green, but it should not be read as a uniform transfer of individual voters. Some 2024 Labour voters may have switched Green; others may have abstained; some previous non-voters may have backed Polanski. Aggregate results describe the net effect, not each person’s journey.

The deposit line reveals a concentrated two-party contest

The Liberal Democrats’ lost deposit provides a hard threshold in an otherwise interpretive result. At 3.4%, they fell below 5%. Conservatives and Reform remained above that line but together won only 13% on the reported shares. Labour and Green combined for 78%. That concentration explains why the election felt like a battle within and around the left even though candidates from across the spectrum stood.

What happens next

Polanski faces a leadership test measured in target seats

Polanski’s immediate task is to turn a strong second place into a credible map. Staying leader after defeat is normal; demonstrating where the party can win is the harder requirement. He will need to identify constituencies where Green support is deep enough, local organization strong enough and opposition fragmented enough to cross the first-place threshold. If he stands again, his insistence on choosing a place where he has a connection suggests he recognizes that parachuting into a favorable demographic profile is not sufficient.

Internal pressure will also depend on his handling of the Zionism motion. A clear account of where he stands, how party policy will be communicated and how Jewish and Palestinian concerns will be addressed could contain the dispute. Continued ambiguity would allow critics to define his leadership through it.

Labour must decide whether to treat the swing as protest or warning

Labour can bank the seat and move on, or treat the result as an early warning about its urban left flank. The safer strategic reading is the latter. Rent, water ownership, climate policy and the boundaries of public investment are not abstract conference arguments in London; they connect to daily costs and services. If Labour dismisses the Green rise as a low-turnout anomaly, it risks allowing a temporary protest coalition to harden. If it simply copies Green positions, it risks blurring its governing program and alienating voters elsewhere.

Burnham’s challenge is to respond without over-reading one constituency. A governing party has to assemble a national coalition, including voters whose priorities differ sharply from those in Holborn and St Pancras. The by-election supplies evidence about one pressure point, not a complete electoral map.

Fragmentation could protect Labour — until it suddenly does not

At the next general election, three broad scenarios follow. In the first, Greens, Your Party-aligned candidates and independents divide the anti-Labour left; Labour retains many seats on reduced shares. In the second, the Greens establish themselves as the principal challenger in a limited group of urban constituencies and convert concentrated support into MPs. In the third, Labour repairs relations with progressive voters while the Greens keep national attention but fail to build enough local first-place coalitions.

The warning for every party is that by-election arithmetic does not transfer automatically. General-election turnout will likely be higher; voters will consider who forms the government; tactical pressures will change; and candidate familiarity will matter. The next local elections and any further parliamentary by-elections will show whether the Holborn movement was specific to Starmer’s departure and Polanski’s candidacy or part of a wider realignment.

For now, the balanced conclusion is not that Labour is safe or that the Greens are on the verge of replacing it. Labour won clearly, and the Greens advanced sharply. Abdi-Wali enters Parliament; Polanski remains outside it. The Holborn and St Pancras by-election preserved a 43-year Labour hold while revealing that historical loyalty can no longer be treated as automatic. In a voting system that rewards only first place, both facts matter — but only one decided the seat.

Sources and verification

Vote totals, percentages, biographical details and quotations are attributed to the reporting below. The analytical sections distinguish those reported facts from interpretation.