Just watching the various results in from London, and so far, no sign of a Tory resurgence. In fact, Khan is getting a swing towards Labour. I think disinformation has been at large.
Yes. He's not quite there yet, but it's looking hopeful. As I've already said, though, the low turnout generally across the country is worrying.
Mind you, I think we now know that tories will stop at nothing in order to get their wicked way, including the disenfranchisement of as many people as possible. Confound and confusticate the lot of 'em!
Rumours of a recount in West Midlands as it looks like Labour edging it which is a big result! Andy Street had a big majority last time, is locally popular and both in reality and campaigning has separated himself from the national party...
It's interesting to see just how far Andy Street, and Ben Houchen, are distancing themselves from the mainstream (?) tories...why, I read somewhere that Mr Houchen didn't even wear a blue rosette at the count!!
Sky calling West Midlands Mayoral race for Labour.
That's a big win.
Far too many people have voted for the party rather than the candidate. Street has done an excellent job.
Perhaps, among other reasons, large swathes of the public are of the opinion that anyone who publicly supported several dubious conservative administrations is a malodorous horse tonker.
Sky calling West Midlands Mayoral race for Labour.
That's a big win.
Far too many people have voted for the party rather than the candidate. Street has done an excellent job.
Perhaps, among other reasons, large swathes of the public are of the opinion that anyone who publicly supported several dubious conservative administrations is a malodorous horse tonker.
If that's the case, I still don't agree with them.
Sky calling West Midlands Mayoral race for Labour.
That's a big win.
Far too many people have voted for the party rather than the candidate. Street has done an excellent job.
Perhaps he should have resigned his party membership and stood as an independent then. Classic case of "you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas" (with apologies to our canine brethren who in no way deserve to be equated with tories).
Going back to the polling staff, quite correctly requiring Johnson to produce ID in accordance with his own legislation before he was allowed to vote, it turns out that he has divulged two extra refinements to this story, neither of which reflect well on him.
He has himself apparently written in the Daily Mail,
"I want to pay a particular tribute to the three villagers who on Thursday rightly turned me away when I appeared in the polling station with nothing to prove my identity except the sleeve of my copy of Prospect magazine, on which my name and address had been printed.
“I showed it to them and they looked very dubious … within minutes I was back with my driving licence and voted Tory.”
So, first, he has admitted that initially he tried to bluff his way in by producing a copy of a magazine wrapper with his name and postal address on it. Remember, this is the ex-leader of a party which so far has been determined to make it harder for younger voters than older ones to have the required ID to pass muster. his legislation allows bus passes but doesn't allow student cards.
Then, he has casually indicated that he, the ex-leader of his party, is so unfamiliar with the electoral process that he describes the polling staff as "three villagers". Clearly he pictures them, and wants his readers to picture them, as mere bumbling but possibly well-meaning yokels.
This is a man who has stood in many elections. Yet he is happy to portray himself as a person with no knowledge, no need to know, and no awareness of how an election is organised, who a presiding officer is, who poll clerks are, what they do, who employs them (in Brightwell-cum-Sotwell, that will be South-Oxfordshire District Council), what the responsibilities are etc. etc. etc.
I stand by what I said about him on this thread yesterday.
Whatever good qualities Mr Street may have, the tory ordure with which he has associated himself in the past has stuck to him with a vengeance.
Even if he were to re-invent himself as an independent, at some future contest, that smell would be remembered...
Mind you, his farewell speech was very gracious, as might perhaps have been expected.
There were twice as many spoiled ballot papers than the winning margin. Also Street had a last minute desperate endorsement from Johnson. The price to him of these things appears enormous.
The Conservatives lost about 500 council seats but the vast majority of then did not go to Labour.
That's not true. You're more pedantic than this when it's a matter of criticising the Tories. When you're criticising Labour all your pedantry deserts you.
It wouldn't even be true to say the majority of council seats that the Conservatives lost did not go to Labour. The majority did go to Labour. The vast majority of the rest went to the Liberals and the Greens.
Suella Braverman this morning : "The Conservatives will be lucky to have any MPs"
My first thought : "Please, don't let us down."
Let's hope we won't be unlucky enough to have Reform MPs in lieu...
I see that Wishi-Washi is still bleating about us having turned the corner, that he's delivering to hard-working British families, and that the Plan is working. I guess he's still in denial after the past few days' worth of disasters.
I think the Tory party had a disaster on Thursday. They lost huge numbers of councilors, and absolute rout. Fewer and fewer people are believing their constant lies. And good riddance too.
But it is also notable that it was not a good day for Labour either. Looking specifically at the byelection, that Labour won, they still have 2000 less votes than last time. They won because nobody voted Tory.
The implications are that more and more people want nothing to do with the fundamentally broken electoral system that we have. That is more of a concern than the Tory disaster is a pleasure.
But turnout dropped from 56% to 32%, so probably votes dropped overall. Some analysts are extrapolating from the council results to a GE, I think that's tricky.
I think the Tory party had a disaster on Thursday. They lost huge numbers of councilors, and absolute rout. Fewer and fewer people are believing their constant lies. And good riddance too.
But it is also notable that it was not a good day for Labour either. Looking specifically at the byelection, that Labour won, they still have 2000 less votes than last time. They won because nobody voted Tory.
The implications are that more and more people want nothing to do with the fundamentally broken electoral system that we have. That is more of a concern than the Tory disaster is a pleasure.
Yes, but what is to be done about it? If people simply don't bother to go to the polling station, they'll get a government they didn't vote for*, which could well do them even more harm than the tories (or Deform, for that matter).
We do seem to be more likely than not to have a Labour government later this year, but they're going to have a really hard task to persuade the fed-up or the reluctant to work with them.
I think it's certainly becoming obvious that the tories have lost the plot, and are on their (painfully slow) way out, despite what their few remaining apologists and fluffers might say to the contrary.
(*of course, they may still end up with a government they didn't want, but it's the indifference, and the poor turnout, which worries me).
Going back to predictions, Sky did a projection showing a hung parliament. However, they left out Scotland, and took local elections as a baseline. This gave Labour 34%, rather low. In fact, it's attracted a lot of criticism.
But turnout dropped from 56% to 32%, so probably votes dropped overall. Some analysts are extrapolating from the council results to a GE, I think that's tricky.
And, when they do they have a habit of being inconsistent. I was in and out getting breakfast and preparing for church this morning so didn't get to see all of Kuenssberg's show. But, it sounded to me (from the kitchen at the time) that the Labour talking head they had in was expressing the view that this was all good news for the GE, that it showed they were heading for a landslide etc, and then asked about whether the growth in Green vote was a concern for Labour decided that "local elections are fought on local issues" and that you couldn't extrapolate from local election results to General Elections.
I'd agree that the very low turn out is worrying. It's certainly in part Conservative voters staying home, but it's got to be more than that and a failure of other parties to inspire people to come out and vote for them.
I think the Tory party had a disaster on Thursday. They lost huge numbers of councilors, and absolute rout. Fewer and fewer people are believing their constant lies. And good riddance too.
But it is also notable that it was not a good day for Labour either. Looking specifically at the byelection, that Labour won, they still have 2000 less votes than last time. They won because nobody voted Tory.
The implications are that more and more people want nothing to do with the fundamentally broken electoral system that we have. That is more of a concern than the Tory disaster is a pleasure.
That's over-reading the data. Turnout in By-elections is typically much lower than a GE. You can also see that this close to a GE, many people on all sides would be a lot less motivated to vote. Conversely, By-elections often have bigger swings than the same seat in a GE. To extrapolate to a Labour landslide from a 26% swing would be to over-read as well.
A big win for Labour, in keeping with the national polling numbers.
Going back to predictions, Sky did a projection showing a hung parliament. However, they left out Scotland, and took local elections as a baseline. This gave Labour 34%, rather low. In fact, it's attracted a lot of criticism.
The National vote share thing is funny. But, interpreted properly, it also points to a big Labour GE win. This is because 1, it doesn't include Scotland where Labour also riding high and 2, There is a significant cohort who vote Green/LibDem/Independent etc. who will vote Labour at a GE. There's specific polling on this question. The same is also true for The Conservatives and Reform.
Careful evaluation of the results show there is no reason to think the national polling is wrong. National polling has an average Labour lead of 20%. That implies a big Labour majority.
If all Reform comes back to the Tories (as in 2019), then it still looks like a Labour majority. The special circumstances of '19 don't apply and the mood music from Reform is that they won't back down as in '19 and the opinion of most Reform voters seems to be they're not coming back this time.
So, whilst I will not count any chickens until it's done, the numbers ALL point to a Labour government. Theses factors, if we assume best-case for the tories are, even then, probably not enough to stop a Labour majority.
On the other side, tactical voting to Get The Tories Out could be BIG.
My central prediction is the Tories reduced to 150 seats. The best they can manage is 200. My hope is for <100.
My other hope is that they properly split as a consequence. Then they're done as an electoral force for a while but the UK would eventually get a centre right party. The Tories haven't been that since 1975. The LibDems under Clegg were but were pretending to be centre left, which is why they were wiped out in 2015.
I'd agree that the very low turn out is worrying. It's certainly in part Conservative voters staying home, but it's got to be more than that and a failure of other parties to inspire people to come out and vote for them.
I think the issue is that there isn't a huge enthusiasm for Labour even though support for the Tories has collapsed.
I'd agree that the very low turn out is worrying. It's certainly in part Conservative voters staying home, but it's got to be more than that and a failure of other parties to inspire people to come out and vote for them.
I think the issue is that there isn't a huge enthusiasm for Labour even though support for the Tories has collapsed.
This may well be so, and points to a great deal of hard toil required on the part of the perhaps aptly-named Labour party.
When there's a perception of a two party system, it needs at least one of those parties to inspire people to vote for them to keep turnout up. But, if neither inspire then a large number of people will think "what's the point?" Low turnout often benefits smaller parties, those supporters aren't thinking in terms of a binary choice and not seeing anything in the big two to vote for, and hence aren't as infected by the ennui induced by two uninspiring main parties, but very rarely helping get them elected - though retaining their deposit becomes less challenging.
Actually, a three party system isn't that much better.
Well, whatever the deluded tories and their lickspittles may say, it's been - on the whole - a good week for Labour (and the others) and a disaster for the government.
It now remains to be seen if the increasingly unhinged right wing of the tories decides to defenestrate Wishi-Washi, as it's obviously all his fault, though it's surely not possible for them to be so mad...or is it?
The Conservatives lost about 500 council seats but the vast majority of then did not go to Labour.
That's not true. You're more pedantic than this when it's a matter of criticising the Tories. When you're criticising Labour all your pedantry deserts you.
It wouldn't even be true to say the majority of council seats that the Conservatives lost did not go to Labour. The majority did go to Labour. The vast majority of the rest went to the Liberals and the Greens.
Let's look at the exact figures then
The Conservatives lost 474 seats. Labour gained 186 seats
The Conservatives lost about 500 council seats but the vast majority of then did not go to Labour.
That's not true. You're more pedantic than this when it's a matter of criticising the Tories. When you're criticising Labour all your pedantry deserts you.
It wouldn't even be true to say the majority of council seats that the Conservatives lost did not go to Labour. The majority did go to Labour. The vast majority of the rest went to the Liberals and the Greens.
Let's look at the exact figures then
The Conservatives lost 474 seats. Labour gained 186 seats
Labour picked up around twice as many of the 474 formerly Tory seats as any other party.
In local elections people have a range of different options, so it’s not surprising that people in e.g. Dorset voted for the LDs as the party that was closer to taking the council over, and in Bristol for the Greens on a similar basis. Anyone thinking that evidently tactical choices are good news for the Tories needs another cup of coffee.
The Conservatives lost about 500 council seats but the vast majority of then did not go to Labour.
That's not true. You're more pedantic than this when it's a matter of criticising the Tories. When you're criticising Labour all your pedantry deserts you.
It wouldn't even be true to say the majority of council seats that the Conservatives lost did not go to Labour. The majority did go to Labour. The vast majority of the rest went to the Liberals and the Greens.
Let's look at the exact figures then
The Conservatives lost 474 seats. Labour gained 186 seats
That's interesting, the figures reported by the BBC are different; -474 for Conservative, +186 for Labour. There must be some interesting differences in how change is measured. The number of councillors elected for each party agree.
The Conservatives lost about 500 council seats but the vast majority of then did not go to Labour.
That's not true. You're more pedantic than this when it's a matter of criticising the Tories. When you're criticising Labour all your pedantry deserts you.
It wouldn't even be true to say the majority of council seats that the Conservatives lost did not go to Labour. The majority did go to Labour. The vast majority of the rest went to the Liberals and the Greens.
Let's look at the exact figures then
The Conservatives lost 474 seats. Labour gained 186 seats
That's interesting, the figures reported by the BBC are different; -474 for Conservative, +186 for Labour. There must be some interesting differences in how change is measured. The number of councillors elected for each party agree.
It might be vs the last election in one and vs immediately prior to the election in the other. Labour lost a lot of councillors over Gaza so comparing with immediately prior to the election will flatter their results.
Arethosemyfeet's figures are the figures I was using. The Guardian publish Telford's figures in a different article, where they describe them as being the change "since the last local election count", whatever that means. Arethosemyfeet's figures are described as the changes at this election.
Even in Telford's figures, 186 may not be a majority of 474 but it's greater than a third of 474 - I wouldn't call it a vast majority.
... In local elections people have a range of different options, so it’s not surprising that people in e.g. Dorset voted for the LDs as the party that was closer to taking the council over, and in Bristol for the Greens on a similar basis. Anyone thinking that evidently tactical choices are good news for the Tories needs another cup of coffee.
That's not a particularly significant result as regards the swing from the Conservatives. The Conservatives have been almost an irrelevance in Bristol local government for several years. More at issue is the threat in the forthcoming general election the Green's noisy but unappealing candidate poses to one of Labour's more impressive middle range MPs.
I'm saying that as someone who is not a supporter of any of those three parties.
The Conservatives lost about 500 council seats but the vast majority of then did not go to Labour.
That's not true. You're more pedantic than this when it's a matter of criticising the Tories. When you're criticising Labour all your pedantry deserts you.
It wouldn't even be true to say the majority of council seats that the Conservatives lost did not go to Labour. The majority did go to Labour. The vast majority of the rest went to the Liberals and the Greens.
Let's look at the exact figures then
The Conservatives lost 474 seats. Labour gained 186 seats
That's interesting, the figures reported by the BBC are different; -474 for Conservative, +186 for Labour. There must be some interesting differences in how change is measured. The number of councillors elected for each party agree.
Comments
Yes. He's not quite there yet, but it's looking hopeful. As I've already said, though, the low turnout generally across the country is worrying.
Mind you, I think we now know that tories will stop at nothing in order to get their wicked way, including the disenfranchisement of as many people as possible. Confound and confusticate the lot of 'em!
Yes, although no official declaration has yet been made - that's due at about 430pm, I think.
🤞🤞
Interesting times, indeed.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/04/sadiq-khan-elected-london-mayor-for-third-term-in-further-boost-for-labour-susan-hall
😌
No definitive result yet from West Midlands...a partial recount is now under way.
And to underline the non-serious nature of Laura K's commentary, this was her tweet last night:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMvoTtBXoAAKf7E?format=jpg&name=medium
That's a big win.
Yes, although it's not official yet IYSWIM.
Far too many people have voted for the party rather than the candidate. Street has done an excellent job.
It is now.
Perhaps, among other reasons, large swathes of the public are of the opinion that anyone who publicly supported several dubious conservative administrations is a malodorous horse tonker.
So it is.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/04/labours-richard-parker-beats-andy-street-to-become-west-midlands-mayor
If that's the case, I still don't agree with them.
Perhaps he should have resigned his party membership and stood as an independent then. Classic case of "you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas" (with apologies to our canine brethren who in no way deserve to be equated with tories).
Even if he were to re-invent himself as an independent, at some future contest, that smell would be remembered...
Mind you, his farewell speech was very gracious, as might perhaps have been expected.
Which is more than can be said for the odious Susan Hall in London
He has himself apparently written in the Daily Mail, So, first, he has admitted that initially he tried to bluff his way in by producing a copy of a magazine wrapper with his name and postal address on it. Remember, this is the ex-leader of a party which so far has been determined to make it harder for younger voters than older ones to have the required ID to pass muster. his legislation allows bus passes but doesn't allow student cards.
Then, he has casually indicated that he, the ex-leader of his party, is so unfamiliar with the electoral process that he describes the polling staff as "three villagers". Clearly he pictures them, and wants his readers to picture them, as mere bumbling but possibly well-meaning yokels.
This is a man who has stood in many elections. Yet he is happy to portray himself as a person with no knowledge, no need to know, and no awareness of how an election is organised, who a presiding officer is, who poll clerks are, what they do, who employs them (in Brightwell-cum-Sotwell, that will be South-Oxfordshire District Council), what the responsibilities are etc. etc. etc.
I stand by what I said about him on this thread yesterday.
There were twice as many spoiled ballot papers than the winning margin. Also Street had a last minute desperate endorsement from Johnson. The price to him of these things appears enormous.
The Labour Party took about twice as many of the lost seats as any other party.
The Tories also came in third in terms of the total number of seats won, behind the Liberal Democrats.
It wouldn't even be true to say the majority of council seats that the Conservatives lost did not go to Labour. The majority did go to Labour. The vast majority of the rest went to the Liberals and the Greens.
My first thought : "Please, don't let us down."
Let's hope we won't be unlucky enough to have Reform MPs in lieu...
I see that Wishi-Washi is still bleating about us having turned the corner, that he's delivering to hard-working British families, and that the Plan is working. I guess he's still in denial after the past few days' worth of disasters.
You have to remember she's not very smart.
Or she has a very instrumental relationship with concepts like ‘Truth’.
Oops! Cross-posted with @alienfromzog , but you're right, too. That sort of relationship is in the tory DNA these days.
But it is also notable that it was not a good day for Labour either. Looking specifically at the byelection, that Labour won, they still have 2000 less votes than last time. They won because nobody voted Tory.
The implications are that more and more people want nothing to do with the fundamentally broken electoral system that we have. That is more of a concern than the Tory disaster is a pleasure.
Yes, but what is to be done about it? If people simply don't bother to go to the polling station, they'll get a government they didn't vote for*, which could well do them even more harm than the tories (or Deform, for that matter).
We do seem to be more likely than not to have a Labour government later this year, but they're going to have a really hard task to persuade the fed-up or the reluctant to work with them.
I think it's certainly becoming obvious that the tories have lost the plot, and are on their (painfully slow) way out, despite what their few remaining apologists and fluffers might say to the contrary.
(*of course, they may still end up with a government they didn't want, but it's the indifference, and the poor turnout, which worries me).
I'd agree that the very low turn out is worrying. It's certainly in part Conservative voters staying home, but it's got to be more than that and a failure of other parties to inspire people to come out and vote for them.
That's over-reading the data. Turnout in By-elections is typically much lower than a GE. You can also see that this close to a GE, many people on all sides would be a lot less motivated to vote. Conversely, By-elections often have bigger swings than the same seat in a GE. To extrapolate to a Labour landslide from a 26% swing would be to over-read as well.
A big win for Labour, in keeping with the national polling numbers.
The National vote share thing is funny. But, interpreted properly, it also points to a big Labour GE win. This is because 1, it doesn't include Scotland where Labour also riding high and 2, There is a significant cohort who vote Green/LibDem/Independent etc. who will vote Labour at a GE. There's specific polling on this question. The same is also true for The Conservatives and Reform.
Careful evaluation of the results show there is no reason to think the national polling is wrong. National polling has an average Labour lead of 20%. That implies a big Labour majority.
If all Reform comes back to the Tories (as in 2019), then it still looks like a Labour majority. The special circumstances of '19 don't apply and the mood music from Reform is that they won't back down as in '19 and the opinion of most Reform voters seems to be they're not coming back this time.
So, whilst I will not count any chickens until it's done, the numbers ALL point to a Labour government. Theses factors, if we assume best-case for the tories are, even then, probably not enough to stop a Labour majority.
On the other side, tactical voting to Get The Tories Out could be BIG.
My central prediction is the Tories reduced to 150 seats. The best they can manage is 200. My hope is for <100.
My other hope is that they properly split as a consequence. Then they're done as an electoral force for a while but the UK would eventually get a centre right party. The Tories haven't been that since 1975. The LibDems under Clegg were but were pretending to be centre left, which is why they were wiped out in 2015.
AFZ
I think the issue is that there isn't a huge enthusiasm for Labour even though support for the Tories has collapsed.
This may well be so, and points to a great deal of hard toil required on the part of the perhaps aptly-named Labour party.
Actually, a three party system isn't that much better.
It now remains to be seen if the increasingly unhinged right wing of the tories decides to defenestrate Wishi-Washi, as it's obviously all his fault, though it's surely not possible for them to be so mad...or is it?
Let's look at the exact figures then
The Conservatives lost 474 seats. Labour gained 186 seats
Are we looking at different figures?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/may/02/local-elections-2024-full-council-results-for-england
This shows -397 for the tories and +232 for Labour.
The Liberal Democrats won 522 seats
The Tories won 515 seats, coming third.
Labour picked up around twice as many of the 474 formerly Tory seats as any other party.
In local elections people have a range of different options, so it’s not surprising that people in e.g. Dorset voted for the LDs as the party that was closer to taking the council over, and in Bristol for the Greens on a similar basis. Anyone thinking that evidently tactical choices are good news for the Tories needs another cup of coffee.
It might be vs the last election in one and vs immediately prior to the election in the other. Labour lost a lot of councillors over Gaza so comparing with immediately prior to the election will flatter their results.
Even in Telford's figures, 186 may not be a majority of 474 but it's greater than a third of 474 - I wouldn't call it a vast majority.
Turnout at council elections is always awful. About a third of voters showing up in an "off year" is a pretty normal recent average.
I'm saying that as someone who is not a supporter of any of those three parties.