At 2240 PM told Tory MPs WhatsApp: “I would like PERSONALLY to thank all the colleagues who have put on such an amazing shift in the last few weeks and days. I know how much you have been doing and it is massively appreciated. Onwards!”
Starmer should be be pretty happy this morning. There is significant progress since 2019.
Afetr 12 years of Tory Rule and 8 months of terrible press for the Government these are not great results for Labour and are very much in line with the By-Elections of the past year.
ROFL first victory in elections in years and this is three years after losing in a landslide and people asking when the Labour Party would end.
A year after Starmee being finished.
A year after people asking how will Labour ever win again?
We know, they change their coalition.
Seriously why do you expect the ruling Government of 12 years to do well in Local Elections?
In 1999 Blair lost 32 Councils after just 2 years in power and just 2 years later he won another thumping majority.
Governments nearly always perform badly in Local Elections, this Government has had the worst press possible for the last 8 months, Labours performance is nowhere near what it should be.
They took Barnet, Westminster and Wandsworth.
I know hating London is cool now but that is historic and unprecedented. And shows the Tories are losing in traditional voters what they gained in the Red Wall, which is going back to Labour anyway.
They generally could end up on less than 150 seats. And yet nobody here wants to talk about it
Curtice says just now on 5 live "Labour are down on 2018 outside London and that the narrative Labour are trying to push that they are doing better than under Corbyn isn't backed by the results so far"
Labour will be devastated, just devastated, that they have lost council seats to the Greens and the LibDems.
Truly their hopes of tactical voting at the next election to kick out the Tories is completely up in smoke.
* As many predicted, the Tories are getting slaughtered in the South but holding their own in the North compared with 2018 * But on 2018 results, Labour would have held most of the Red Wall, albeit with reduced majorities. Labour's Red Wall meltdown came in 2019, when Leavers got fed up with Brexit delay. In 2021, the Tories were actually making substantial progress in the North; Labour has reversed that and is closer to 2018 level, which would make a massive difference in terms of seats. * London is becoming a Labour fortress now (with a few exceptions like Kensington and Chelsea, Enfield and Merton). But outside London, the Southern votes are swinging to whoever is the obvious non-Tory, with LibDems and Greens both benefiting hugely. - Labour and the LibDems do have something of a de facto tactical voting alliance at grass roots level. The Greens are not part of it and could be real spoilers in a Ge in some seats. - The Tories risk having their votes in the wrong places. Doing quite well in the Red Wall while losing most of the seats, and melting down in the South and East is a formula for disaster.
I agree that this represents a return of the anyone-but-the-Tory vote across the South. I'm not sure I completely buy the "almost back to par" story in Red Wall seats. Not as bad, no, but not winning crucial seats.
In the South, Labour benefit from voters simply wanting to give the Tories a beating.
In the Midlands and the North, they clearly need to tell a story to win those voters back. "Not being Tories" is not enough on its own.
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
Is it really a pact or a case of targetting limited resources in the most effective way possible.
In any electoral contest would labour really pour resources into a Tory/Lib Dem marginal.
At a couple of elections in the early 2000s our Lib Dem candidate spent most of his time campaigning in the nearest winnable seat.
Davey played down a pact. As the new Labour talking head on GMB said, people don't like pacts, aside from the FBPE/PrOgReSsIvE aLlIaNcE brigadet on twitter.
I wonder what will happen to my council tax. During the last few years - which were not easy - the council kept their impost flat while Sadiq Khan maxed out the increase he was allowed (high single digits each year IIRC)
There's more to life than council tax - it's one consideration, but as we see not the decisive one.
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
I prefer pacts to be tacit, and based on targetting seats as per 1997 than not standing a candidate, but pacts are not inconsistent with FPTP, they are a consequence of it.
NEW: Conservatives LOSE West Oxfordshire to NOC. David Cameron’s old patch. Tories have controlled it since 2000- lose their maj thanks to Lib Dem gains.
This is how the Tories end up on less than 200 seats
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
Why?
I’m a LibDem member. My views are much, much closer to Labour or the Greens than they are to the Conservatives.
An electoral pact means that a council close to my views is much more likely to be elected. And, in fact, has been, in Oxfordshire last year and in West Oxfordshire this morning.
Starmer should be be pretty happy this morning. There is significant progress since 2019.
Afetr 12 years of Tory Rule and 8 months of terrible press for the Government these are not great results for Labour and are very much in line with the By-Elections of the past year.
ROFL first victory in elections in years and this is three years after losing in a landslide and people asking when the Labour Party would end.
A year after Starmee being finished.
A year after people asking how will Labour ever win again?
We know, they change their coalition.
Seriously why do you expect the ruling Government of 12 years to do well in Local Elections?
In 1999 Blair lost 32 Councils after just 2 years in power and just 2 years later he won another thumping majority.
Governments nearly always perform badly in Local Elections, this Government has had the worst press possible for the last 8 months, Labours performance is nowhere near what it should be.
They took Barnet, Westminster and Wandsworth.
I know hating London is cool now but that is historic and unprecedented. And shows the Tories are losing in traditional voters what they gained in the Red Wall, which is going back to Labour anyway.
They generally could end up on less than 150 seats. And yet nobody here wants to talk about it
Nick made a similar point upthread. Doesn't mean it will happen, but the geographic reassortment of Conservative support, which delivered a big majority at the GE, has left them vulnerable to electoral disaster.
There was a Tory council leader in the Midlands who was calling for Boris to go sometime after midnight on BBC radio 4.
He said he wasn't waiting for his count 'I've been around long enough to know when the writing's on the wall'. .......'No it's not because of losing it's a question of morality'
......at which point I stopped listening and now I can't find him. I'm curious to know if he did lose.
OK. I'll be working, as and when I get chance over the next few days, and possibly in a pretty limited way, mapping local election results to current and proposed Westminster constituencies.
Because, much as we always say 'its locals', the news cycle does try to get a sense of the national picture from it and, for example, "Labour gain local election plurality in Hartlepool constituency" is as good a way as any of expressing that read across. Especially in a metro heavy year where many wards do sport a decently representative slate of candidates.
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
And IMV, that's rubbish.
Fair enough. But back in 2010, we had six candidates under FPTP. So it's nowt to do with FPTP. We lost an independent (Robin Page), and UKIP did not stand. If a Green candidate had stood, I might well have voted for him. In the end I voted LD, but I'd be less likely to next time because of the pact.
Remember folks that the One True Tory has proclaimed that Red Wall Tory voters aren't proper Tories and the party doesn't need their votes.
Which will be a problem if the Monkey Hangers in 'Pools - who voted to reelect a man who during the campaign pled guilty to beating his wife - are the last bastions of the Tory vote in England.
The prediction in some of the extrapolations that Labour would have a net loss of seats in England are proving wrong, as there's a significant gain. I'm not sure the outstanding results are going to change that. Do we have a final score from Southampton? Assuming Labour moves into 2nd in Scotland and does OK in Wales, it's a solid national picture, though only spectacular in London and Southamption (we shall see about Worthing).
I went to bed early and didn't vote (no elections in my area) and am not supporting any party so my dispassionate early impression of the results.
Greens showing 23 net Councillor gains, that seems pretty impressive for them considering their starting point but won't equate to anything at a General Election.
Labour showing 38 net Councillor gains, that seems fairly disappointing for them to be honest. Though no doubt they'll be delighted to make further gains with the London Councils (and the media loves to talk about London) but they need to be doing better elsewhere.
Lib Dems showing 57 net Councillor gains, biggest gainers of the election. They should be delighted with that I guess?
Tories showing 124 net Councillor losses. Pretty disappointing for them, but not especially bad for a midterm election.
All in all a kind of meh result that rather matches the polls - its midterms, the government are behind, but its kind of expected for a midterm and doesn't really say much for the next election. Lib Dems probably happiest, Labour will be happy with London but need to be doing well outside of London if they want to form the next government.
Of course half the results aren't in yet, so this could all yet change.
Curtice says just now on 5 live "Labour are down on 2018 outside London and that the narrative Labour are trying to push that they are doing better than under Corbyn isn't backed by the results so far"
You are wrong BJO. They are clearly UP to 2018 levels, not down.
I have part one (Tory v Labour in red wall) analysed perfectly I’m sure. Moon Rabbits answer is the right answer. Come and join me here in your own time 😌
Part two this afternoon, the assault on the blue wall. Here the expectation management is different, people now expecting Libdem fun at Tory expense. I believe it when I see it. But it could be a lot of fun finding out.
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
Why?
I’m a LibDem member. My views are much, much closer to Labour or the Greens than they are to the Conservatives.
An electoral pact means that a council close to my views is much more likely to be elected. And, in fact, has been, in Oxfordshire last year and in West Oxfordshire this morning.
There was a Tory council leader in the Midlands who was calling for Boris to go sometime after midnight on BBC radio 4.
He said he wasn't waiting for his count 'I've been around long enough to know when the writing's on the wall'. .......'No it's not because of losing it's a question of morality'
......at which point I stopped listening and now I can't find him. I'm curious to know if he did lose.
The prediction in some of the extrapolations that Labour would have a net loss of seats in England are proving wrong, as there's a significant gain. I'm not sure the outstanding results are going to change that. Do we have a final score from Southampton? Assuming Labour moves into 2nd in Scotland and does OK in Wales, it's a solid national picture, though only spectacular in London and Southamption (we shall see about Worthing).
The "big lie" expectations management from the Tories has worked though. Losing 25% of councils and 20% of councillors in the overnight results is being spun as "good" because the numbers are so far below the unachievable bar they set.
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
I prefer pacts to be tacit, and based on targetting seats as per 1997 than not standing a candidate, but pacts are not inconsistent with FPTP, they are a consequence of it.
Not really. Under many non-FPTP schemes, the pacts happen *after* the election, turning what happened in 2010 into the norm.
As I say, not standing candidates is really poor. Not really trying shows that you don't really believe in what you're saying.
Starmer should be be pretty happy this morning. There is significant progress since 2019.
Afetr 12 years of Tory Rule and 8 months of terrible press for the Government these are not great results for Labour and are very much in line with the By-Elections of the past year.
ROFL first victory in elections in years and this is three years after losing in a landslide and people asking when the Labour Party would end.
A year after Starmee being finished.
A year after people asking how will Labour ever win again?
We know, they change their coalition.
Seriously why do you expect the ruling Government of 12 years to do well in Local Elections?
In 1999 Blair lost 32 Councils after just 2 years in power and just 2 years later he won another thumping majority.
Governments nearly always perform badly in Local Elections, this Government has had the worst press possible for the last 8 months, Labours performance is nowhere near what it should be.
They took Barnet, Westminster and Wandsworth.
I know hating London is cool now but that is historic and unprecedented. And shows the Tories are losing in traditional voters what they gained in the Red Wall, which is going back to Labour anyway.
They generally could end up on less than 150 seats. And yet nobody here wants to talk about it
Nick made a similar point upthread. Doesn't mean it will happen, but the geographic reassortment of Conservative support, which delivered a big majority at the GE, has left them vulnerable to electoral disaster.
I wrote at length about this when the PB topic of the day was when will Starmer resign, he's a disaster etc.
The Tories' electoral strategy of 2019 is very successful if and only if:
Labour has a very, very unpopular leader.
The economy is in relatively good health.
Brexit has not been delivered.
People who hate the Tories don't stay at home, they turn out specifically to vote because Labour would be worse.
None of these things are now true - we may genuinely look back in a few years and say how much of a disaster picking Johnson was for them, long term
BJO delighted when his supposed party for life has few bad results in. Fake Labour
Personal insults will not make the results outside London any better.
See what Sir John Curtice said.
So do you agree that 2018 was bad or not because St Jeremy was in charge?
If 2018 was bad because of Jeremy, and 2022 is no better than 2018 (or worse as Curtice says) outside of London, then does that mean its bad or worse because of Starmer outside of London?
Does it just keep coming all morning or can I have a bath?
I can’t keep being first, it makes me look an obsessive 🫢
Being obsessive is not a bad look on PB. We all are!
Am I right in thinking that Lab is not gaining in "Red Wall" areas compared to 2018, but is in comparison to 2021?
Nice to see so much yellow and green.
I’ll answer your question. At first it looked like that. But. Look at the number of councillors won by everyone.
psephologists been saying for weeks that in 2018 Labour had a bit of a “meh” result at the time, but considering everything that has happened in the same territory since, 2018 is good, just holding 2018, just standing still, is a far better result than those which have happened since.
In other words, if at the 2019 general election Labour had got those 2018 votes they wouldn’t have melted down to that degree. It’s boring. And it’s not a sexy headline. But it’s actually true. It’s the sort of thing here on PB we should have enough respect for a betting site to agree about, and educate the rest of the world.
Secondly, Where a whole council isn’t up at once, but thirds over 4 years, direct comparisons with four years ago isn’t the whole story. What has happened in between plays a part in a distinct local narrative. Last week HY said Starmer needs to take Swindon. When you look into it Tories had such an excellent result there last year, taking seats that forever have been Labour, in all fairness it actually takes a few elections to work back from such bad years? You screaming “they havn’t made much progress in Dudley, pathetic” versus Labour in Dudley all smiles with progress they have made. It’s about eating the elephant one step at a time in the world of climbing councils.
Meanwhile, if the Libdems have a great afternoon and evening in the blue wall, the Tory’s can go over 200 losses into the red zone the electionolgists built as the true bad measurement. 250 is losing about 1/4 councillors. The real bad result not the fake one put out in expectation management.
Still a long day ahead. If I was blue wall Tory heading to count, they can’t be sure it’s their day.
Only a single lonely Tory councillor in Richmond upon Thames.
He's 92 years old and was first elected (for Labour, funnily enough) in the Borough's first election in 1964. I believe he was on the old Twickenham Urban District Council for a term before that. He's not served continuously, but it's a pretty amazing stint.
Excellent to note that these youngsters are still making the cut ..
There is a 94-year-old Independent councillor up for re-election in Argyll & Bute.
Mere striplings.
Here in Auchentennach I'd win a landslide if any election were contested but my devoted electorate refuse the opportunity and there is a bylaw of 1717 that ensures new candidates must be over 80 and have their nomination papers signed by their parents. Seems fair to me ..
Curtice says just now on 5 live "Labour are down on 2018 outside London and that the narrative Labour are trying to push that they are doing better than under Corbyn isn't backed by the results so far"
You are wrong BJO. They are clearly UP to 2018 levels, not down.
I have part one (Tory v Labour in red wall) analysed perfectly I’m sure. Moon Rabbits answer is the right answer. Come and join me here in your own time 😌
Part two this afternoon, the assault on the blue wall. Here the expectation management is different, people now expecting Libdem fun at Tory expense. I believe it when I see it. But it could be a lot of fun finding out.
Gains in Scotland will also be an indicator of Labour fortunes at GE, especially if those gains come at the expense of the SNP. Could nix the SNP as a stick to beat Labour with in England, plus giving enough crucial seats for a Lib-Lab Government. If Scotland starts voting Labour in decent numbers, then Labour are on course for Government (assuming Red Wall returns).
BJO delighted when his supposed party for life has few bad results in. Fake Labour
Personal insults will not make the results outside London any better.
See what Sir John Curtice said.
So do you agree that 2018 was bad or not because St Jeremy was in charge?
If 2018 was bad because of Jeremy, and 2022 is no better than 2018 (or worse as Curtice says) outside of London, then does that mean its bad or worse because of Starmer outside of London?
My point is that BJO will say 2018 was good, because he's a JC cultist (of which I am formerly).
But in that case 2022 is also good - but BJO will not say so because he hates Keir Starmer.
2022 is objectively good - if you take three councils that never voted Labour before, that's as seismic as Hartlepool going Tory
Woke up, looked at BBC news website, and got the message it had been a bad night for Labour and a reassuring one for the Tories.
Come here and see it’s actually been pretty bad for the Tories and good for Labour.
Then look at the actual results and wonder why the headline wasn’t “fantastic night for the Liberal Democrats”.
As OGH tells us salience matters.
The LibDems aren’t salient
They’ll be salient at a GE if their gains in the Blue wall are the gateway to a Tory defeat. If I were Starmer I’d be quietly happy at the yellows’ progress.
Curtice says just now on 5 live "Labour are down on 2018 outside London and that the narrative Labour are trying to push that they are doing better than under Corbyn isn't backed by the results so far"
You are wrong BJO. They are clearly UP to 2018 levels, not down.
I have part one (Tory v Labour in red wall) analysed perfectly I’m sure. Moon Rabbits answer is the right answer. Come and join me here in your own time 😌
Part two this afternoon, the assault on the blue wall. Here the expectation management is different, people now expecting Libdem fun at Tory expense. I believe it when I see it. But it could be a lot of fun finding out.
Gains in Scotland will also be an indicator of Labour fortunes at GE, especially if those gains come at the expense of the SNP. Could nix the SNP as a stick to beat Labour with in England, plus giving enough crucial seats for a Lib-Lab Government. If Scotland starts voting Labour in decent numbers, then Labour are on course for Government (assuming Red Wall returns).
If polling is correct and Labour are now the opposition to the SNP, the key Tory attack line is neutralised. It is Tories in Scotland that risk another referendum - and Keir will be delighted with that
There was a Tory council leader in the Midlands who was calling for Boris to go sometime after midnight on BBC radio 4.
He said he wasn't waiting for his count 'I've been around long enough to know when the writing's on the wall'. .......'No it's not because of losing it's a question of morality'
......at which point I stopped listening and now I can't find him. I'm curious to know if he did lose.
The prediction in some of the extrapolations that Labour would have a net loss of seats in England are proving wrong, as there's a significant gain. I'm not sure the outstanding results are going to change that. Do we have a final score from Southampton? Assuming Labour moves into 2nd in Scotland and does OK in Wales, it's a solid national picture, though only spectacular in London and Southamption (we shall see about Worthing).
Outside of London Labour are currently in a small net loss of seats in England position.
That is spot on with the extrapolations I saw
London Gains also spot on with those extrapolations.
Woke up, looked at BBC news website, and got the message it had been a bad night for Labour and a reassuring one for the Tories.
Come here and see it’s actually been pretty bad for the Tories and good for Labour.
Then look at the actual results and wonder why the headline wasn’t “fantastic night for the Liberal Democrats”.
As OGH tells us salience matters.
The LibDems aren’t salient
They’ll be salient at a GE if their gains in the Blue wall are the gateway to a Tory defeat. If I were Starmer I’d be quietly happy at the yellows’ progress.
Almost like this was unofficially the plan - as I have been saying for over a year now...
Curtice says just now on 5 live "Labour are down on 2018 outside London and that the narrative Labour are trying to push that they are doing better than under Corbyn isn't backed by the results so far"
Labour will be devastated, just devastated, that they have lost council seats to the Greens and the LibDems.
Truly their hopes of tactical voting at the next election to kick out the Tories is completely up in smoke.
No, what's happening is that voters are going for the anti-Tory party without much tribalsim, which is actually the definition of tactical voting. In the London borough, it's Labour. In Richmond, it's the LibDems. In Southampton, it's Labour. In Oxfordshire, it's the LibDems and Greens. Where the Tories are not a threat, as in Hull, you get LD/Green gains from Labour, but that's very unusual in Tory-led areas, since everyone is concentrating on winning Tory seats.
I wonder what will happen to my council tax. During the last few years - which were not easy - the council kept their impost flat while Sadiq Khan maxed out the increase he was allowed (high single digits each year IIRC)
There's more to life than council tax - it's one consideration, but as we see not the decisive one.
Sure.
But councils should be about local services - which are good - delivered in the most cost effective way.
I went to bed early and didn't vote (no elections in my area) and am not supporting any party so my dispassionate early impression of the results.
Greens showing 23 net Councillor gains, that seems pretty impressive for them considering their starting point but won't equate to anything at a General Election.
Labour showing 38 net Councillor gains, that seems fairly disappointing for them to be honest. Though no doubt they'll be delighted to make further gains with the London Councils (and the media loves to talk about London) but they need to be doing better elsewhere.
Lib Dems showing 57 net Councillor gains, biggest gainers of the election. They should be delighted with that I guess?
Tories showing 124 net Councillor losses. Pretty disappointing for them, but not especially bad for a midterm election.
All in all a kind of meh result that rather matches the polls - its midterms, the government are behind, but its kind of expected for a midterm and doesn't really say much for the next election. Lib Dems probably happiest, Labour will be happy with London but need to be doing well outside of London if they want to form the next government.
Of course half the results aren't in yet, so this could all yet change.
The Guardian have Labour at +91 seats. Wonder why they have such different numbers to the BBC?
Practical tip: when I refresh PB to get the latest comments, it tends to loop without updating. But when I navigate to PB anew and then click on comments, they appear.
The prediction in some of the extrapolations that Labour would have a net loss of seats in England are proving wrong, as there's a significant gain. I'm not sure the outstanding results are going to change that. Do we have a final score from Southampton? Assuming Labour moves into 2nd in Scotland and does OK in Wales, it's a solid national picture, though only spectacular in London and Southamption (we shall see about Worthing).
Outside of London Labour are currently in a small net loss of seats in England position.
That is spot on with the extrapolations I saw
London Gains also spot on with those extrapolations.
Did you write the earlier "a good night for the Tories, a bad one for Labour" BBC headline?
There was a Tory council leader in the Midlands who was calling for Boris to go sometime after midnight on BBC radio 4.
He said he wasn't waiting for his count 'I've been around long enough to know when the writing's on the wall'. .......'No it's not because of losing it's a question of morality'
......at which point I stopped listening and now I can't find him. I'm curious to know if he did lose.
It was Worcester
Thanks. Did he lose his seat?
No Marc Bayliss held his seat but Worcester went to NOC
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
I prefer pacts to be tacit, and based on targetting seats as per 1997 than not standing a candidate, but pacts are not inconsistent with FPTP, they are a consequence of it.
Not really. Under many non-FPTP schemes, the pacts happen *after* the election, turning what happened in 2010 into the norm.
As I say, not standing candidates is really poor. Not really trying shows that you don't really believe in what you're saying.
This is nonsense. Take an extreme example. 100 candidates of various shades of conservatism and 1 socialist candidate. 102 voters. 2 are socialists the rest various shades of conservatism. Socialist candidate wins with 2 votes and under 2% of the vote. That is your idea of democracy? Wouldn't it be better if the conservatives formed a pact or change from FPTP so they can stand and the most popular conservative gets elected.
I went to bed early and didn't vote (no elections in my area) and am not supporting any party so my dispassionate early impression of the results.
Greens showing 23 net Councillor gains, that seems pretty impressive for them considering their starting point but won't equate to anything at a General Election.
Labour showing 38 net Councillor gains, that seems fairly disappointing for them to be honest. Though no doubt they'll be delighted to make further gains with the London Councils (and the media loves to talk about London) but they need to be doing better elsewhere.
Lib Dems showing 57 net Councillor gains, biggest gainers of the election. They should be delighted with that I guess?
Tories showing 124 net Councillor losses. Pretty disappointing for them, but not especially bad for a midterm election.
All in all a kind of meh result that rather matches the polls - its midterms, the government are behind, but its kind of expected for a midterm and doesn't really say much for the next election. Lib Dems probably happiest, Labour will be happy with London but need to be doing well outside of London if they want to form the next government.
Of course half the results aren't in yet, so this could all yet change.
The Guardian have Labour at +91 seats. Wonder why they have such different numbers to the BBC?
Probably because the BBC waits till results are official and inscribed on vellum, whereas other news outlets go with the bleeding obvious and have to correct themselves about one time in a hundred.
If it hadn't been for my first wife I likely would never have bought a tin of baked beans in my life too, because I'd not eaten them up to that point, but had to adjust as they were such a staple in her diet.
BJO delighted when his supposed party for life has few bad results in. Fake Labour
Personal insults will not make the results outside London any better.
See what Sir John Curtice said.
So do you agree that 2018 was bad or not because St Jeremy was in charge?
If 2018 was bad because of Jeremy, and 2022 is no better than 2018 (or worse as Curtice says) outside of London, then does that mean its bad or worse because of Starmer outside of London?
My point is that BJO will say 2018 was good, because he's a JC cultist (of which I am formerly).
But in that case 2022 is also good - but BJO will not say so because he hates Keir Starmer.
2022 is objectively good - if you take three councils that never voted Labour before, that's as seismic as Hartlepool going Tory
I don't think its objectively good. London has been trending Labour for a long time, so I don't think its that seismic.
Labour looks like solidifying its gains in London, taking a few more seats there, but outside of London they need to be doing better.
The key thing though is that the PM's own seat is in London. I've long thought he'll retire in 2023 and these results reinforce that expectation. He won't want to go into an election where his own seat is at risk, and he won't want to 'chicken run' so retirement will be the best option.
Regular viewers of The Dura Ace Show may recall that I have visited Hartlepool, spiritual home of the new tory party, on a few occasions to attend functions at the RN Museum. Thus I have a few "Poolie" friends on FB. One of them reports that one of their polling booths had to be closed due to a "wanking incident".
These are the people for whom every government policy is now calibrated to please. God help us all.
The Met Office did well to use the Iceland volcano crisis to secure funding for a pollution observations plane, in part to be ready to observe future volcanic ash clouds to determine where the safe limit for passenger flights would be.
Funding stopped now. Might be a sign of things to come with government spending (or the current Met Office management might not be as persuasive).
If it hadn't been for my first wife I likely would never have bought a tin of baked beans in my life too, because I'd not eaten them up to that point, but had to adjust as they were such a staple in her diet.
What is a baked bean? They never mention them in my ready meals...
The prediction in some of the extrapolations that Labour would have a net loss of seats in England are proving wrong, as there's a significant gain. I'm not sure the outstanding results are going to change that. Do we have a final score from Southampton? Assuming Labour moves into 2nd in Scotland and does OK in Wales, it's a solid national picture, though only spectacular in London and Southamption (we shall see about Worthing).
Outside of London Labour are currently in a small net loss of seats in England position.
That is spot on with the extrapolations I saw
London Gains also spot on with those extrapolations.
Did you write the earlier "a good night for the Tories, a bad one for Labour" BBC headline?
Hmmm a lib dem revival pretty key to Labours hopes no? Although I suspect by the news bulletins tonight we we be talking about NI and certain contributors may be back to talking about UDI for Ballymena or some such....
I thought Ed Davey was very telling this morning.
In lots of places we are the challengers to the Tories he said. But nothing about Labour.
Unofficial pact as per 1997, it us clear Labour stepped back in some places and so did the Lib Dems. Big problems for the Tories ahead
Electoral pacts can be undemocratic, reducing local choice for the electorate.
At the last GE I only had a choice of three parties because of a Green / Lib Dem pact.
You only had a choice of three parties because of First Past The Post. As long as that continues, parties are inevitably going to make (often informal) pacts to maximise their seat tallies.
Rubbish.
And people who claim to dislike FPTP because of a supposed or real lack of democracy, who then support electoral pacts, are being inconsistent IMV.
I prefer pacts to be tacit, and based on targetting seats as per 1997 than not standing a candidate, but pacts are not inconsistent with FPTP, they are a consequence of it.
Not really. Under many non-FPTP schemes, the pacts happen *after* the election, turning what happened in 2010 into the norm.
As I say, not standing candidates is really poor. Not really trying shows that you don't really believe in what you're saying.
On that basis, the Conservative mish-mash ought to demerge, so that we have an old-fashioned decent Conservative versus a corrupt cynical Johnsonite versus an Empire loyalist. These strands of Conservatism are all very different. If they all stood in every constituency, electors would know what they are being invited to support.
Woke up, looked at BBC news website, and got the message it had been a bad night for Labour and a reassuring one for the Tories.
Come here and see it’s actually been pretty bad for the Tories and good for Labour.
Then look at the actual results and wonder why the headline wasn’t “fantastic night for the Liberal Democrats”.
As OGH tells us salience matters.
The LibDems aren’t salient
They’ll be salient at a GE if their gains in the Blue wall are the gateway to a Tory defeat. If I were Starmer I’d be quietly happy at the yellows’ progress.
Sure but you were asking why they weren’t the headline today
If Wales and Scotland swing strongly to Labour - a landslide is surely on the cards as the economic situation deteriorates.
Wales will be interesting because leave has been so strong there, and leave was definitely in play in England overnight. Will labour after finding it hard work in leave voting areas of England find that extend to become an Albion thing?
The prediction in some of the extrapolations that Labour would have a net loss of seats in England are proving wrong, as there's a significant gain. I'm not sure the outstanding results are going to change that. Do we have a final score from Southampton? Assuming Labour moves into 2nd in Scotland and does OK in Wales, it's a solid national picture, though only spectacular in London and Southamption (we shall see about Worthing).
Outside of London Labour are currently in a small net loss of seats in England position.
That is spot on with the extrapolations I saw
London Gains also spot on with those extrapolations.
Did you write the earlier "a good night for the Tories, a bad one for Labour" BBC headline?
BBC headline from Nick Robinson 'Bad night for Tories. Not yet good enough for Labour'
On a personal note, not such a great result round here. Usual Labour holds across the board and in my ward it appears that Hannah, although still managing over 1,000 votes, has slightly lost both vote share and absolute votes from last time.
If Wales and Scotland swing strongly to Labour - a landslide is surely on the cards as the economic situation deteriorates.
Wales will be interesting because leave has been so strong there, and leave was definitely in play in England overnight. Will labour after finding it hard work in leave voting areas of England find that extend to become an Albion thing?
Drakeford has prevented that by being the Wales Party.
Tunbridge Wells will be a big one later. If the Lib Dems can cause a loss of overall Tory control that will be headline worthy simply because of the iconic nature of the town.
Disgusted voters etc.
Also notable that the most prolific tweeter on Tunbridge Wells Lib Dem fortunes is also one of the best military commentators on Ukraine, Dr Mike Martin.
I went to bed early and didn't vote (no elections in my area) and am not supporting any party so my dispassionate early impression of the results.
Greens showing 23 net Councillor gains, that seems pretty impressive for them considering their starting point but won't equate to anything at a General Election.
Labour showing 38 net Councillor gains, that seems fairly disappointing for them to be honest. Though no doubt they'll be delighted to make further gains with the London Councils (and the media loves to talk about London) but they need to be doing better elsewhere.
Lib Dems showing 57 net Councillor gains, biggest gainers of the election. They should be delighted with that I guess?
Tories showing 124 net Councillor losses. Pretty disappointing for them, but not especially bad for a midterm election.
All in all a kind of meh result that rather matches the polls - its midterms, the government are behind, but its kind of expected for a midterm and doesn't really say much for the next election. Lib Dems probably happiest, Labour will be happy with London but need to be doing well outside of London if they want to form the next government.
Of course half the results aren't in yet, so this could all yet change.
The Guardian have Labour at +91 seats. Wonder why they have such different numbers to the BBC?
Probably because the BBC waits till results are official and inscribed on vellum, whereas other news outlets go with the bleeding obvious and have to correct themselves about one time in a hundred.
The Guardian seem to have fewer results in. For Labour councillors the respective numbers are:
BBC 1189 (+38) Guardian 1061 (+91)
Are there really a few council declarations that the Guardian have missed where Labour have lost 53 net councillors?
I'm wondering if this is something to do with comparing to notional results where boundaries are redrawn, or perhaps there are places where the total number of councillors has changed that isn't being corrected for?
If Wales and Scotland swing strongly to Labour - a landslide is surely on the cards as the economic situation deteriorates.
Wales will be interesting because leave has been so strong there, and leave was definitely in play in England overnight. Will labour after finding it hard work in leave voting areas of England find that extend to become an Albion thing?
I note that Lib Dems now have control of heavily Leave Kingston upon Hull.
Regular viewers of The Dura Ace Show may recall that I have visited Hartlepool, spiritual home of the new tory party, on a few occasions to attend functions at the RN Museum. Thus I have a few "Poolie" friends on FB. One of them reports that one of their polling booths had to be closed due to a "wanking incident".
These are the people for whom every government policy is now calibrated to please. God help us all.
There shouldn’t have been pictures of tractors in there anyway.
If Wales and Scotland swing strongly to Labour - a landslide is surely on the cards as the economic situation deteriorates.
Calm down, calm down. There is no appetite yet for post- Corbyn Labour but the LDs are back (at least at a local level). Which would suggest a NoC Parliament.
Are those who voted yesterday simply Johnson skeptics or has he taken the Tory Party into the sewer with him? Of that I am not sure, but a replacement has a hell of a task on his/ her hands in the light of future economic prospects.
Sadly, it does look like London Bridge is only a year or two away.
She’s not committed to a single future event, everything will be decided on the day. Which means that Charles can’t commit to much either, in case he needs to deputise for his mother.
I went to bed early and didn't vote (no elections in my area) and am not supporting any party so my dispassionate early impression of the results.
Greens showing 23 net Councillor gains, that seems pretty impressive for them considering their starting point but won't equate to anything at a General Election.
Labour showing 38 net Councillor gains, that seems fairly disappointing for them to be honest. Though no doubt they'll be delighted to make further gains with the London Councils (and the media loves to talk about London) but they need to be doing better elsewhere.
Lib Dems showing 57 net Councillor gains, biggest gainers of the election. They should be delighted with that I guess?
Tories showing 124 net Councillor losses. Pretty disappointing for them, but not especially bad for a midterm election.
All in all a kind of meh result that rather matches the polls - its midterms, the government are behind, but its kind of expected for a midterm and doesn't really say much for the next election. Lib Dems probably happiest, Labour will be happy with London but need to be doing well outside of London if they want to form the next government.
Of course half the results aren't in yet, so this could all yet change.
The Guardian have Labour at +91 seats. Wonder why they have such different numbers to the BBC?
Probably because the BBC waits till results are official and inscribed on vellum, whereas other news outlets go with the bleeding obvious and have to correct themselves about one time in a hundred.
The Guardian seem to have fewer results in. For Labour councillors the respective numbers are:
BBC 1189 (+38) Guardian 1061 (+91)
Are there really a few council declarations that the Guardian have missed where Labour have lost 53 net councillors?
I'm wondering if this is something to do with comparing to notional results where boundaries are redrawn, or perhaps there are places where the total number of councillors has changed that isn't being corrected for?
Ah, yes, the Guardian figures add up to a net change of -13 councillors, so it looks like they are more likely to be the garbage ones.
The prediction in some of the extrapolations that Labour would have a net loss of seats in England are proving wrong, as there's a significant gain. I'm not sure the outstanding results are going to change that. Do we have a final score from Southampton? Assuming Labour moves into 2nd in Scotland and does OK in Wales, it's a solid national picture, though only spectacular in London and Southamption (we shall see about Worthing).
Outside of London Labour are currently in a small net loss of seats in England position.
That is spot on with the extrapolations I saw
London Gains also spot on with those extrapolations.
Did you write the earlier "a good night for the Tories, a bad one for Labour" BBC headline?
No mate.
Nor did I force Sir John Curtice to say "the results in the rest of England outside London were down on Corbyn in 2018 despite the narrative Labour are trying to push"
But shouldn’t it be an objective decision? I have know idea what the safe MRL is, but regulators will be able to
Might help to get us accustomed. You know, build up a bit of resistance slowly so that when Vlad presses the button the Brits already have natural immunity.
One thing the Govt has yet to address or admit is the degree to which Brexit is fuelling UK inflation. Business leaders say it’s the thing “no one talks about” esp firms who want to keep Govt contracts https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1522477132500381696
But shouldn’t it be an objective decision? I have know idea what the safe MRL is, but regulators will be able to
Might help to get us accustomed. You know, build up a bit of resistance slowly so that when Vlad presses the button the Brits already have natural immunity.
Comments
In 2hrs since there’s been just 1 reply 😬
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1522357921744666625
I know hating London is cool now but that is historic and unprecedented. And shows the Tories are losing in traditional voters what they gained in the Red Wall, which is going back to Labour anyway.
They generally could end up on less than 150 seats. And yet nobody here wants to talk about it
Truly their hopes of tactical voting at the next election to kick out the Tories is completely up in smoke.
In the South, Labour benefit from voters simply wanting to give the Tories a beating.
In the Midlands and the North, they clearly need to tell a story to win those voters back. "Not being Tories" is not enough on its own.
In any electoral contest would labour really pour resources into a Tory/Lib Dem marginal.
At a couple of elections in the early 2000s our Lib Dem candidate spent most of his time campaigning in the nearest winnable seat.
Davey played down a pact. As the new Labour talking head on GMB said, people don't like pacts, aside from the FBPE/PrOgReSsIvE aLlIaNcE brigadet on twitter.
It was reportedly former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s favourite council
Outgoing Tory leader Ravi Govindia said the "issue" of Boris Johnson was raised “consistently" by voters
http://bloom.bg/3Fk0gDc https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1522470069837697025/photo/1
See what Sir John Curtice said.
This is how the Tories end up on less than 200 seats
I’m a LibDem member. My views are much, much closer to Labour or the Greens than they are to the Conservatives.
An electoral pact means that a council close to my views is much more likely to be elected. And, in fact, has been, in Oxfordshire last year and in West Oxfordshire this morning.
How is that inconsistent?
Doesn't mean it will happen, but the geographic reassortment of Conservative support, which delivered a big majority at the GE, has left them vulnerable to electoral disaster.
Or perhaps Starmer with a beer and curry was just the human side of Starmer that people wanted to see.
The LibDems aren’t salient
Because, much as we always say 'its locals', the news cycle does try to get a sense of the national picture from it and, for example, "Labour gain local election plurality in Hartlepool constituency" is as good a way as any of expressing that read across. Especially in a metro heavy year where many wards do sport a decently representative slate of candidates.
Which will be a problem if the Monkey Hangers in 'Pools - who voted to reelect a man who during the campaign pled guilty to beating his wife - are the last bastions of the Tory vote in England.
Greens showing 23 net Councillor gains, that seems pretty impressive for them considering their starting point but won't equate to anything at a General Election.
Labour showing 38 net Councillor gains, that seems fairly disappointing for them to be honest. Though no doubt they'll be delighted to make further gains with the London Councils (and the media loves to talk about London) but they need to be doing better elsewhere.
Lib Dems showing 57 net Councillor gains, biggest gainers of the election. They should be delighted with that I guess?
Tories showing 124 net Councillor losses. Pretty disappointing for them, but not especially bad for a midterm election.
All in all a kind of meh result that rather matches the polls - its midterms, the government are behind, but its kind of expected for a midterm and doesn't really say much for the next election. Lib Dems probably happiest, Labour will be happy with London but need to be doing well outside of London if they want to form the next government.
Of course half the results aren't in yet, so this could all yet change.
I have part one (Tory v Labour in red wall) analysed perfectly I’m sure. Moon Rabbits answer is the right answer. Come and join me here in your own time 😌
Part two this afternoon, the assault on the blue wall. Here the expectation management is different, people now expecting Libdem fun at Tory expense. I believe it when I see it. But it could be a lot of fun finding out.
Curtice just said Labour outside London are doing worse than 2018 under Corbyn.
Wait for the predicted vote share later today and then explain why it doesn't match the Polls
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1521957860887912448
As I say, not standing candidates is really poor. Not really trying shows that you don't really believe in what you're saying.
The Tories' electoral strategy of 2019 is very successful if and only if:
Labour has a very, very unpopular leader.
The economy is in relatively good health.
Brexit has not been delivered.
People who hate the Tories don't stay at home, they turn out specifically to vote because Labour would be worse.
None of these things are now true - we may genuinely look back in a few years and say how much of a disaster picking Johnson was for them, long term
Was 2018 bad or not?
Here in Auchentennach I'd win a landslide if any election were contested but my devoted electorate refuse the opportunity and there is a bylaw of 1717 that ensures new candidates must be over 80 and have their nomination papers signed by their parents. Seems fair to me ..
No context British politics:
"I have never purchased a tin of baked beans in my life," say Oliver Dowden.
https://twitter.com/WJames_Reuters/status/1522472070910812161
But in that case 2022 is also good - but BJO will not say so because he hates Keir Starmer.
2022 is objectively good - if you take three councils that never voted Labour before, that's as seismic as Hartlepool going Tory
With half the Councils in the Lib Dems have already gained nearly twice that estimate, while Labour are off track.
The Tory figure might be close at the end, but the seats seem to be going yellow not red.
That is spot on with the extrapolations I saw
London Gains also spot on with those extrapolations.
The fallout for Scot Conservatives north of the border (Lab's confident of coming 2nd on vote share if not no of cllrs) from this vote cd be wild https://twitter.com/ProfTomkins/status/1522470125307322368
But councils should be about local services - which are good - delivered in the most cost effective way.
For everything else there’s Mastercard
Buckingham Palace has drawn up contingency plans for Prince Charles to stand in for mother at Queen’s Speech
Whitehall source said it’s increasingly unlikely she will deliver it
Royal source said she plans to but won’t confirm until the day
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4661527a-cc9e-11ec-bb1d-4e283d8ec187?shareToken=56a5372777d44d3767da8840c170f6eb
Expectation management or are Labour back?
If Wales and Scotland swing strongly to Labour - a landslide is surely on the cards as the economic situation deteriorates.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/05/boris-johnson-fumio-kishida-share-fukushima-popcorn-radioactive/ (£££)
Northern exposure.
Not sure that’s a great recipe for the Tories, TBH.
LAB: +147
LDEM: +34
GRN: +35
Labour will finish someway under that, the Tories probably a bit over, libdems definitely some way over that, greens over that too.
Conclusion, what that forecaster thought would go to labour quite a bit is shared among other three as well as underestimate libdems hurting Tories.
Other than no cigar, in the right ball park.
Boris Johnson asked Ben Wallace to withdraw letter asking for increased defence spending after invasion of Ukraine
Johnson accepted principle of letter - that inflation risked 2% Nato target - but argued Spring Statement was wrong time for it
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9bfae354-cc99-11ec-bb1d-4e283d8ec187?shareToken=1151ac57fe051902083e3652ca7aed87
Labour looks like solidifying its gains in London, taking a few more seats there, but outside of London they need to be doing better.
The key thing though is that the PM's own seat is in London. I've long thought he'll retire in 2023 and these results reinforce that expectation. He won't want to go into an election where his own seat is at risk, and he won't want to 'chicken run' so retirement will be the best option.
These are the people for whom every government policy is now calibrated to please. God help us all.
Taxes have never been higher, so government needs to look carefully at the scope of spending.
Also, a funny Guardian story linked from that one - Swiss Nespresso factory got a surprise when 500kg of cocaine turned up in a delivery of coffee beans.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/05/swiss-police-seize-cocaine-nespresso-factory
Someone else is going to be very unhappy, when they find out they got a pallet of coffee!
Story of Merseyside though.... Labour heartland still: https://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=31&V=1&RPID=33376255
Disgusted voters etc.
Also notable that the most prolific tweeter on Tunbridge Wells Lib Dem fortunes is also one of the best military commentators on Ukraine, Dr Mike Martin.
BBC 1189 (+38)
Guardian 1061 (+91)
Are there really a few council declarations that the Guardian have missed where Labour have lost 53 net councillors?
I'm wondering if this is something to do with comparing to notional results where boundaries are redrawn, or perhaps there are places where the total number of councillors has changed that isn't being corrected for?
That Metropolitan Elite gets everywhere nowadays.
Tory MP David Simmonds says “The PM some very difficult questions to answer - the public are not happy with partygate.
“He said he will take full responsibility for the result - he must”
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1522476295875178497
Are those who voted yesterday simply Johnson skeptics or has he taken the Tory Party into the sewer with him? Of that I am not sure, but a replacement has a hell of a task on his/ her hands in the light of future economic prospects.
But shouldn’t it be an objective decision? I have know idea what the safe MRL is, but regulators will be able to
She’s not committed to a single future event, everything will be decided on the day. Which means that Charles can’t commit to much either, in case he needs to deputise for his mother.
So if they are back to 2018 levels, surely this means the Red Wall is going back to Labour not away - which means dozens of losses for the Tories
Nor did I force Sir John Curtice to say "the results in the rest of England outside London were down on Corbyn in 2018 despite the narrative Labour are trying to push"
F1: annoyingly, I have forgotten which car it was that did notably better in hotter conditions, but Miami is looking rather toasty.
A quite incredible 'Red Wall' revival for Labour - a week after @Keir_Starmer came to campaign in Carlisle & Workington
A mauling for the Conservatives
BREAKING: Labour will have a majority on the new Cumberland Council
This is a remarkable result - all 3 MPs in the area are Conservatives (Carlisle, Copeland, Workington)
2 seats still to be declared
How strange, BJO said Labour was going backwards
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1522477132500381696
Well, he might, but the wires have been cut 😁