The Liberal Democrats with over 400 gains and many councils, some of which they have never held before. This is way, way above expectations.
The Tories being cuffed across the board, 1000 losses from a horribly low base is very bad. Greens doing well, despite losing Brighton. Labour pretty solid but not altogether convincing.
I'm shocked that the party obsessed with women and penises has failed to beat Labour.
Almost like people vote on economics and not woke issues?
And yet, relatedly, it would be a mistake for Labour to assume results like this are indicative that there are no issues relating to those debates at all.
As you note people vote on economic issues (they do vote on cultural ones as well, but I would argue they cannot win solely on that), so if that is true then a vote for Labour is also not endorsement of those woke issues, even as people did not vote Tory to reject them either. If the argument is people are voting for reasons like economics, it cannot be claimed they rejected the Tory approach on other matters.
I'm shocked that the party obsessed with women and penises has failed to beat Labour.
Almost like people vote on economics and not woke issues?
And yet, relatedly, it would be a mistake for Labour to assume results like this are indicative that there are no issues relating to those debates at all.
As you note people vote on economic issues (they do vote on cultural ones as well, but I would argue they cannot win solely on that), so if that is true then a vote for Labour is also not endorsement of those woke issues, even as people did not vote Tory to reject them either. If the argument is people are voting for reasons like economics, it cannot be claimed they rejected the Tory approach on other matters.
I'm shocked that the party obsessed with women and penises has failed to beat Labour.
Almost like people vote on economics and not woke issues?
It’s not economics beyond we are paying £x,000 in council tax, and the things we used to see delivered have disappeared.
So in 2015 the voters voted Labour, in 2019 they voted conservative (or vice versa) based on promises and when they weren’t delivered the council returned to a variation of the 2015 result
At current Tory attrition rate (losing 31% of net council seats), the end figure would be 1046 losses.
If they do pass 1000 seat losses it will feel even more symbolic and significant. Despite the coronation 'distraction', the hacks will like to have an easy number to get their head around.
Is Sunak's position in peril? I don't know but there are going to be a lot of nervous and unhappy MPs on the tory benches after this.
On the contrary, I have it on good authority that many expected it to be a lot worse. A 9% Labour lead is a lot lower than many feared and whilst I think it unlikely, many will see that as not impossible to erode.
Sorry to piss on your parade. Labour are a long way from sealing the deal even tho Starmer has made impressive progress
Unfortunately "I have it on good authority" butters no parsnips (as someone else once said).
Last weekend, the Mail were claiming a "Rishi Bounce" would keep losses to 250 - others were saying 500 and we've ended up nearly 1,000.
How much "worse" were your good authorities expecting - 1,500, 2,000?
There have been a few decent results for the Conservatives - a couple of Councils regained following splits and defections and progress in some Labour areas. The heartlands of the Midlands stayed mainly loyal but most of the rest has been poor.
Labour may not have "sealed the deal" (whatever that means) but the Conservatives have a lot of work to do to prove to the electorate they deserve another term in Government.
Don't get me wrong, I think they are fucked, but so many Labour supporters on here think they are marching toward 1997, when in fact they might be marching to 1992. I actually think the country deserves a change even though I am concerned about Labour, but if Labour supporters think a 9% lead mid term is something to be cheering about then they might find themselves in for a shock even without a Sheffield rally
Fair comment and the biggest mistake people can make is to assume the future will repeat the past.
In both 2017 and 2019, the local election results were a desperately poor guide to the subsequent General Election. The Conservatives had a stellar set of local results in 2017 and had these been repeated May's landslide would have matched if not exceeded Thatcher's but that didn't happen.
We are, I would guess, just under 18 months from the next election which is an eternity.
I'm no friend of the Conservatives, as you can probably guess, and at the very least, despite what some may think, Sunak hasn't really given any sense of what a re-elected Conservative Government would do except continued managerialism.
Starmer has also failed to communicate what a Labour Govenrment might look like - I had the dubious fortune of being sent the Values Survey by Labour and it's quite clear Labour's offering is going to have elements of the Sun, the Moon, the stars, puppy dogs and no one having the wobbles.
Blair won because he accepted Thatcher's transformation of Britain's economy. There has been no similar transformation under Cameron/May/Johnson/Truss/Sunak - indeed, with the exception of leaving the EU, it's hard to know what the Conservatives actually have done with the last 13 years.
There's an argument for Labour to eschew caution for ambition - give people a reason to vote for rather than a bland vote against.
Not sure it makes strategic, tactical OR horse sense, for Conservatives to turn Rishi Sunak into their Fifth Stooge (aka Five Failed PMs) then flail about in search of Stooge #6.
Agreed. The Conservatives are not (bar a Black Swan) going to win. But, they should aim for a Labour 2010 result, rather than a 1997 result. Sunak is their best hope of the former.
The Liberal Democrats with over 400 gains and many councils, some of which they have never held before. This is way, way above expectations.
The Tories being cuffed across the board, 1000 losses from a horribly low base is very bad. Greens doing well, despite losing Brighton. Labour pretty solid but not altogether convincing.
Game On.
Not a horribly low base at all. Before this election, the tories had more councillors than Labour, even after 13 years in power. Compare with 1996, when labour had more than twice as many councillors as the tories.
Labour has had an amazing night. The Tories have had a shocker.
Labour's had an okay night, because the LDs and Greens have done so well.
I believe in the context of where they've come from, I would call it amazing for them to be where they are now. A year or two ago we were discussing if they'd be around in a few years. So I stand by that description.
But I also agree with you that a pincer movement with the LDs and Greens will be ultimately what does for the Tories in the end. A big if, of course.
These results are sufficiently bad to call Sunak's leadership into question.
Well, it seems you don't.
I do. Inside and out.
A good rule of thumb with any group when things go badly is to expect their first response to be to double down and select the option most comforting to them.
Is Sunak's leadership the main issue, or a contributing factor? Opinions will be divided on the subject, it could be so. But is it a comforting answer to some regardless of whether it is wrong? Oh yes.
Not sure it makes strategic, tactical OR horse sense, for Conservatives to turn Rishi Sunak into their Fifth Stooge (aka Five Failed PMs) then flail about in search of Stooge #6.
The rump Boris loyalist fashion will use this as an opportunity to bitch, and some of the broader right will panic and demand traditional remedies like tax cuts (paid for, doubtless, by conveniently unspecified "efficiency savings" or by being extremely cruel to the disabled and unemployed.) But it won't threaten Sunak's position. He's the least unappetising prospect they have, and nor will they be able to agree on yet another replacement. Another leadership battle = implosion and something close to a Canada '93-level wipeout, and they know it.
The interesting thing is that anti Tory vote is organised. This may not be 1997, it’s something new.
Yes. I don't think there is any much genuine ideological conviction behind this. The demand is for centrism done competently and with a semblance of integrity. The majority has decided the Tories can't do this. Sadly they are right. But there is no overwhelming love for another party, unlike 1997.
So the best tactic is to put first Tory removal by voting for whoever can beat them (in Scotland for whichever union party can do so).
This movement will be in full flow by 2024. The media love a story. The tactics of Tory wipeout is certainly a story.
Bet accordingly on a GE with LDs doing well, and Labour possibly needing them in government.
“Labour is calling it “a clear rejection of a prime minister who never had a mandate to begin with””
A fair point. I know the tories will argue the constitutional point until the cows come home. “But, Gordon Brown!” etc etc.
But to the general public, given the personalised/presidentialised way election campaigns have been fought in recent years, it’s a fair point, isn’t it?
It’s not just in the eyes of labour. In the eyes of many ordinary voters, Sunak doesn’t have a mandate to govern.
Not sure it makes strategic, tactical OR horse sense, for Conservatives to turn Rishi Sunak into their Fifth Stooge (aka Five Failed PMs) then flail about in search of Stooge #6.
There is a vanishingly small number of people within the Tory Party who are comfortable with Sunak/Hunt and their policies. Sunak's entire raison d'etre is to win elections - or as his supporters here try to spin it these days, to minimise defeats. That is his purpose. There it begins and there it ends. If he can't do that, what on earth is the point?
Not sure it makes strategic, tactical OR horse sense, for Conservatives to turn Rishi Sunak into their Fifth Stooge (aka Five Failed PMs) then flail about in search of Stooge #6.
Agreed. The Conservatives are not (bar a Black Swan) going to win. But, they should aim for a Labour 2010 result, rather than a 1997 result. Sunak is their best hope of the former.
Agreed, but there will be sniping all the way now from those who are too weak/shit to do better but enough to undermine him and the brand over the next 18 months.
Like the scorpion they won't be able to help themselves.
Being as I have been banging on about the Conservatives voter suppression tactics for weeks. Have we any news of its relative success?
Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Tories decided it had done them more harm than good and decided to try and reverse the whole thing in time for the general election?
The Liberal Democrats with over 400 gains and many councils, some of which they have never held before. This is way, way above expectations.
The Tories being cuffed across the board, 1000 losses from a horribly low base is very bad. Greens doing well, despite losing Brighton. Labour pretty solid but not altogether convincing.
Game On.
Not a horribly low base at all. Before this election, the tories had more councillors than Labour, even after 13 years in power. Compare with 1996, when labour had more than twice as many councillors as the tories.
Ahem. You need to compare like-with-like.
1996 was metropolitan boroughs, as well as a smattering (one third of seats) in district councils.
An opportunity arises tomorrow for the remaining half of a bottle of Carlos III brandy that has languished in a cubboard for around 20 years. But alas I have become teetotal in the meantime, and my wife never touches the firewater. So an opportunity foregone.
“Labour is calling it “a clear rejection of a prime minister who never had a mandate to begin with””
A fair point. I know the tories will argue the constitutional point until the cows come home. “But, Gordon Brown!” etc etc.
But to the general public, given the personalised/presidentialised way election campaigns have been fought in recent years, it’s a fair point, isn’t it?
It’s not just in the eyes of labour. In the eyes of many ordinary voters, Sunak doesn’t have a mandate to govern.
Especially if you voted for "Boris" not the Tories.
Would Boris have done better? He might have. Many Tories will be convinced he would have.
In part they would probably be right. Part of the problem of the post Boris era was the party collapsing in on itself and wrecking its image and credibility, with the rapid turnover of PMs just making them look ridiculous. That reputation hit has probably resulted in larger losses than if there had been a smooth transition (though Boris's fans did everything they could to make it less smooth), and possibly even larger losses than if he had been left in place.
The problem with their analysis is they start from the position that all would have been fine had Boris been in charge because the national polling was better, and don't consider why MPs took the remarkable step of forcing him out. That is not something MPs do easily, and that they felt they had to do it, rightly or not, shows there were massive problems with Boris remaining in place, and it would be an error to assume that May 2023 would have been equivalent to previous years.
Particularly when one reason he was ousted was he just would not stop causing scandals and problems which the party had to constantly defend, and so the odds on there being no more of those happening had he remained in place are very low.
I think a tiny majority is feasible with Scotland but reasonably Labour will be somewhere around 300 seats IMHO.
I think in the election after they'll achieve a Cameron-style majority as the Tories do a Labour and go mad.
I agree that Labour will do very well in the election after the next, not necessarily because the Tories go mad(der) in opposition, but because voters often seem to reward parties that just scraped in on their first term.
Not sure it makes strategic, tactical OR horse sense, for Conservatives to turn Rishi Sunak into their Fifth Stooge (aka Five Failed PMs) then flail about in search of Stooge #6.
Agreed. The Conservatives are not (bar a Black Swan) going to win. But, they should aim for a Labour 2010 result, rather than a 1997 result. Sunak is their best hope of the former.
Agreed, but there will be sniping all the way now from those who are too weak/shit to do better but enough to undermine him and the brand over the next 18 months.
Like the scorpion they won't be able to help themselves.
Since Rishi and his repellent parliamentary supporters spend most of their time sniping at fellow Tories, including in his 'rally the troops' address on Wednesday of all times and places, such behaviour seems somewhat appropriate.
The Liberal Democrats with over 400 gains and many councils, some of which they have never held before. This is way, way above expectations.
The Tories being cuffed across the board, 1000 losses from a horribly low base is very bad. Greens doing well, despite losing Brighton. Labour pretty solid but not altogether convincing.
Game On.
Not a horribly low base at all. Before this election, the tories had more councillors than Labour, even after 13 years in power. Compare with 1996, when labour had more than twice as many councillors as the tories.
Ahem. You need to compare like-with-like.
1996 was metropolitan boroughs, as well as a smattering (one third of seats) in district councils.
I think a tiny majority is feasible with Scotland but reasonably Labour will be somewhere around 300 seats IMHO.
I think in the election after they'll achieve a Cameron-style majority as the Tories do a Labour and go mad.
I agree that Labour will do very well in the election after the next, not necessarily because the Tories go mad(der) in opposition, but because voters often seem to reward parties that just scraped in on their first term.
Not only that. But changes of the main Party of government have become exceedingly rare events. 1997, 2010. That's two in the last 44 years.
Not sure it makes strategic, tactical OR horse sense, for Conservatives to turn Rishi Sunak into their Fifth Stooge (aka Five Failed PMs) then flail about in search of Stooge #6.
Agreed. The Conservatives are not (bar a Black Swan) going to win. But, they should aim for a Labour 2010 result, rather than a 1997 result. Sunak is their best hope of the former.
Agreed, but there will be sniping all the way now from those who are too weak/shit to do better but enough to undermine him and the brand over the next 18 months.
Like the scorpion they won't be able to help themselves.
Seem to recollect something similar in year or so preceding 1997 GE?
Par for the course, esp. with a "PM over the water" or across the jacuzzi in BoJo's case.
NOT unique to Britain, not unknown in USA. As you may have noticed!
“Labour is calling it “a clear rejection of a prime minister who never had a mandate to begin with””
A fair point. I know the tories will argue the constitutional point until the cows come home. “But, Gordon Brown!” etc etc.
But to the general public, given the personalised/presidentialised way election campaigns have been fought in recent years, it’s a fair point, isn’t it?
It’s not just in the eyes of labour. In the eyes of many ordinary voters, Sunak doesn’t have a mandate to govern.
I don't think it is a fair point at all. The underlying assumption is basically that if you lose some local elections your 'mandate' as PM is rejected too. Yet we know parties have lost locals and gone on to win under the same leader. So it would be a poor way of judging mandate.
Am I to believe that if Boris had been in office and this result happened that Labour would not be making the same argument, only tweaked to say he had lost his mandate, rather than never had one? Of course they would.
So that's at least one person not a Tory arguing the constitutional point. 'In the eyes of many ordinary voters' is just a nonsense anyway - people have argued a party which just won a majority don't have a mandate as well, the word is clearly meaningless. What does it even mean in this context? That he should quit because he has no mandate to do anything? Call an election? Well blow me down oppositions call for elections when they think they will win them and governments resist them when they think the same.
We do have more personalised election campaigns but we simply don't have presidents, there is no reason to 'renew' a mandate. And yeah, I know VPs are on the ballot as well but presidential campaigns are much more personalised, so if a VP took over would they really have a mandate? Come on.
I was the expecting the former but not the latter.
Last week the Tories set expectations management at 1,000 seats lost which meant they were expecting 600-700 losses.
I expect a leadership challenge this year now.
From whom, and on what prospectus?
Boris. There is no one else.
I very much doubt it. Even if the outcome of the Privileges Committee probe doesn't end with his being recalled and voted out of the Commons, would the unity of the Conservative Party itself survive a concerted attempt to manoeuvre him back into Downing St?
I was the expecting the former but not the latter.
Last week the Tories set expectations management at 1,000 seats lost which meant they were expecting 600-700 losses.
I expect a leadership challenge this year now.
From whom, and on what prospectus?
Johnson and Trussites.
Former will say I can and have won general elections, get rid of the homunculus PM.
If Boris wants it, it’s his, isn’t it?
Worth remembering that he had the votes to put a contest to the members, and he would have won that contest. Therefore he did not want to become PM again in November. If he wants another year to prepare for a GE he needs to move again now.
Of course, he might want to try for a new 2019 - win, then quick GE as soon as possible.
I don't think that will play the same way, there was a clear mission to achieve then.
Vale looks very good indeed for us (and the Greens)
Well done, who is us!?
Sorry - Lib Dems. We've held on to all of our gains from last time so far (despite it looking like a freak result in 2019) and even made further gains. Greens have taken out other Tories; they look to be becoming the official Opposition.
When we walked into the hall four years ago, the Tories were defending 29 seats out of 38. They were reduced to 6 four years ago and may end up with none after today.
Vale of White Horse, I assume? Went to have a look and yes, that does indeed look like a massacre. I noticed earlier that you guys have come close to a lock-out in St Albans; these results look similarly emphatic.
Yup. There's been quite a swing around these parts. We've also made it to a majority on South Oxfordshire - going into the election four years ago, we had only one seat there and the Tories had 33 out of 36. They have been smashed there as well.
2019 was an asteroid strike here for the Tories. This year has been the Deccan Traps.
You know more than I do Andy but my understanding is that there is a lot of anger in that part of Oxfordshire about fields been lost to housing and the Tories are blamed for this. Is that fair?
Not exactly. There was a lot of unhappiness over infrastructure not following housing as promised (my area, amongst others, made a Neighbourhood Plan for even more housing than requested, but the promised infrastructure didn’t follow it). Then there was speculative development (which, when people had been promised that if they voted for these NDPs and the associated housing, they could control where it went, did make people angry).
Finances were crashing. We were in a Five Counties Partnership on outsourced services that had promised better services at lower cost, but gave worse services at a higher cost.
The Liberal Democrats with over 400 gains and many councils, some of which they have never held before. This is way, way above expectations.
The Tories being cuffed across the board, 1000 losses from a horribly low base is very bad. Greens doing well, despite losing Brighton. Labour pretty solid but not altogether convincing.
Game On.
Not a horribly low base at all. Before this election, the tories had more councillors than Labour, even after 13 years in power. Compare with 1996, when labour had more than twice as many councillors as the tories.
Ahem. You need to compare like-with-like.
1996 was metropolitan boroughs, as well as a smattering (one third of seats) in district councils.
I was referring to the total number of councillors in office, not the change... which is what I assume Cicero meant by 'base'.
Fair enough.
But it is worth noting that in last year's locals, Labour won more than twice as many councillors as the Conservatives (3,073 vs 1,403).
The overall number of Conservative councillors is bolstered by the great 2021 they had. If you just look at the latest two cycles, then while not 1996 levels, it's way better for Labour than 1991.
I was the expecting the former but not the latter.
Last week the Tories set expectations management at 1,000 seats lost which meant they were expecting 600-700 losses.
I expect a leadership challenge this year now.
From whom, and on what prospectus?
Johnson and Trussites.
Former will say I can and have won general elections, get rid of the homunculus PM.
Do you think Johnson and the Trussites could form a pact? Johnson as the leader delivering Trussite supply-side reforms.
Truss explicitly ran on the platform that Boris was great and she did not support his ousting (even as she promised to complete redo his economic policies). A Boris-Truss alliance looks more than plausible, since it's not like Boris has any ideological committment to any economic policy.
I was the expecting the former but not the latter.
Last week the Tories set expectations management at 1,000 seats lost which meant they were expecting 600-700 losses.
I expect a leadership challenge this year now.
From whom, and on what prospectus?
Johnson and Trussites.
Former will say I can and have won general elections, get rid of the homunculus PM.
Do you think Johnson and the Trussites could form a pact? Johnson as the leader delivering Trussite supply-side reforms.
I think he wanted to do that anyway. In the 'last days' of his administration when he appointed Zahawi he spoke of looking forward to going for 'economic growth' with a new Chancellor - he knew fine well what Sunak and the Treasury's agenda was doing to the economy.
A basket of stocks selected by ChatGPT, a chatbot powered by artificial intelligence (AI), has far outperformed some of the most popular investment funds in the United Kingdom.
Between March 6 and April 28, a dummy portfolio of 38 stocks gained 4.9% while 10 leading investment funds clocked an average loss of 0.8%, according to an experiment conducted by financial comparison site finder.com.
I was the expecting the former but not the latter.
Last week the Tories set expectations management at 1,000 seats lost which meant they were expecting 600-700 losses.
I expect a leadership challenge this year now.
From whom, and on what prospectus?
Johnson and Trussites.
Former will say I can and have won general elections, get rid of the homunculus PM.
If Boris wants it, it’s his, isn’t it?
A good question. There can't be any doubt that he wants it, as Trump wants to be POTUS.
I think however the answer to the question is doubtful. The unexciting answer is: No. The Tory party would not be that crazy.
If I am wrong then we are going to find out. It follows as night follows day. Boris would pick his best moment - only when he believes he will win - and go for it. He won't do it on the off chance.
Betting should take account of this. If he goes for it, facts and prices will change.
My guess: he won't at least before the next election.
Not sure it makes strategic, tactical OR horse sense, for Conservatives to turn Rishi Sunak into their Fifth Stooge (aka Five Failed PMs) then flail about in search of Stooge #6.
There is a vanishingly small number of people within the Tory Party who are comfortable with Sunak/Hunt and their policies. Sunak's entire raison d'etre is to win elections - or as his supporters here try to spin it these days, to minimise defeats. That is his purpose. There it begins and there it ends. If he can't do that, what on earth is the point?
Simply that, if everything you say prior to final sentence above is gospel truth, then it STILL makes no sense to chuck yet another Prime Minister and Conservative Leader over the side.
Just NOT a good look, on general principles. Electorally speaking.
As for Boris, track record for retreads ain't great. Even when (the minority) they actually win.
Shall I have chicken fajitas or a frozen pizza tonight? No pineapple on it
With shots to celebrate the election results?
Maybe hard to believe but I don't do a huge amount of politics in real life, so unlikely. I was out last night at the pub quiz, so going to have an easy one tonight and then pub tomorrow
I was the expecting the former but not the latter.
Last week the Tories set expectations management at 1,000 seats lost which meant they were expecting 600-700 losses.
I expect a leadership challenge this year now.
From whom, and on what prospectus?
Johnson and Trussites.
Former will say I can and have won general elections, get rid of the homunculus PM.
Do you think Johnson and the Trussites could form a pact? Johnson as the leader delivering Trussite supply-side reforms.
I think he wanted to do that anyway. In the 'last days' of his administration when he appointed Zahawi he spoke of looking forward to going for 'economic growth' with a new Chancellor - he knew fine well what Sunak and the Treasury's agenda was doing to the economy.
His Chancellor operated his agenda. I don't buy this weird fiction PMs have of blaming their chancellors as though they cannot see and do anything about it happening.
Certainly he spotted the need to try something different toward the end, which shows his flexibility and willingness to try a different approach so I can believe he wanted to do something Trussish, but he spent years unable to see or do anything about Sunak, an experienced MP with no experience of high office until Boris gave it to him? Pull the other one.
Mid Devon: LibDem + 21 councillors, Tories lose 13 (just five left for next time!), Greens +2, assorted Indys -10. I expect big tented Mark will be along to give us the inside story soon….
LDs in areas up in 2025 may be annoyed, by then the Tories will be out and maybe there won't be such a surge against their candidates.
Well, yes, and the next time these seats are contested (2027), the Conservatives might be in Opposition and will be in a position to make hundreds of gains in the Labour Government's mid term.
That's how it is - the Conservatives began to recover on election day in 1997 when they gained back seats in the local elections which took place on the same day as the General Election.
Comments
The Tories being cuffed across the board, 1000 losses from a horribly low base is very bad. Greens doing well, despite losing Brighton. Labour pretty solid but not altogether convincing.
Game On.
As you note people vote on economic issues (they do vote on cultural ones as well, but I would argue they cannot win solely on that), so if that is true then a vote for Labour is also not endorsement of those woke issues, even as people did not vote Tory to reject them either. If the argument is people are voting for reasons like economics, it cannot be claimed they rejected the Tory approach on other matters.
So in 2015 the voters voted Labour, in 2019 they voted conservative (or vice versa) based on promises and when they weren’t delivered the council returned to a variation of the 2015 result
In both 2017 and 2019, the local election results were a desperately poor guide to the subsequent General Election. The Conservatives had a stellar set of local results in 2017 and had these been repeated May's landslide would have matched if not exceeded Thatcher's but that didn't happen.
We are, I would guess, just under 18 months from the next election which is an eternity.
I'm no friend of the Conservatives, as you can probably guess, and at the very least, despite what some may think, Sunak hasn't really given any sense of what a re-elected Conservative Government would do except continued managerialism.
Starmer has also failed to communicate what a Labour Govenrment might look like - I had the dubious fortune of being sent the Values Survey by Labour and it's quite clear Labour's offering is going to have elements of the Sun, the Moon, the stars, puppy dogs and no one having the wobbles.
Blair won because he accepted Thatcher's transformation of Britain's economy. There has been no similar transformation under Cameron/May/Johnson/Truss/Sunak - indeed, with the exception of leaving the EU, it's hard to know what the Conservatives actually have done with the last 13 years.
There's an argument for Labour to eschew caution for ambition - give people a reason to vote for rather than a bland vote against.
IF answer is the former, do you offer a psephologist's discount? Or at least allow us to run a tab!
But I also agree with you that a pincer movement with the LDs and Greens will be ultimately what does for the Tories in the end. A big if, of course.
Is Sunak's leadership the main issue, or a contributing factor? Opinions will be divided on the subject, it could be so. But is it a comforting answer to some regardless of whether it is wrong? Oh yes.
So the best tactic is to put first Tory removal by voting for whoever can beat them (in Scotland for whichever union party can do so).
This movement will be in full flow by 2024. The media love a story. The tactics of Tory wipeout is certainly a story.
Bet accordingly on a GE with LDs doing well, and Labour possibly needing them in government.
LDs came second in 91 seats.
“Labour is calling it “a clear rejection of a prime minister who never had a mandate to begin with””
A fair point. I know the tories will argue the constitutional point until the cows come home. “But, Gordon Brown!” etc etc.
But to the general public, given the personalised/presidentialised way election campaigns have been fought in recent years, it’s a fair point, isn’t it?
It’s not just in the eyes of labour. In the eyes of many ordinary voters, Sunak doesn’t have a mandate to govern.
I was the expecting the former but not the latter.
Last week the Tories set expectations management at 1,000 seats lost which meant they were expecting 600-700 losses.
I expect a leadership challenge this year now.
Like the scorpion they won't be able to help themselves.
1996 was metropolitan boroughs, as well as a smattering (one third of seats) in district councils.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_Kingdom_local_elections
The problem with their analysis is they start from the position that all would have been fine had Boris been in charge because the national polling was better, and don't consider why MPs took the remarkable step of forcing him out. That is not something MPs do easily, and that they felt they had to do it, rightly or not, shows there were massive problems with Boris remaining in place, and it would be an error to assume that May 2023 would have been equivalent to previous years.
Particularly when one reason he was ousted was he just would not stop causing scandals and problems which the party had to constantly defend, and so the odds on there being no more of those happening had he remained in place are very low.
Not saying one previously anonymous poster is now posing as another anonymous one.
That's exposing sockpuppetry, not doxxing.
Oh yes, and Matt. Not a classic but it'll do:
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1654520447441010690
Bit strange, eh?
But changes of the main Party of government have become exceedingly rare events.
1997, 2010.
That's two in the last 44 years.
Former will say I can and have won general elections, get rid of the homunculus PM.
Par for the course, esp. with a "PM over the water" or across the jacuzzi in BoJo's case.
NOT unique to Britain, not unknown in USA. As you may have noticed!
Am I to believe that if Boris had been in office and this result happened that Labour would not be making the same argument, only tweaked to say he had lost his mandate, rather than never had one? Of course they would.
So that's at least one person not a Tory arguing the constitutional point. 'In the eyes of many ordinary voters' is just a nonsense anyway - people have argued a party which just won a majority don't have a mandate as well, the word is clearly meaningless. What does it even mean in this context? That he should quit because he has no mandate to do anything? Call an election? Well blow me down oppositions call for elections when they think they will win them and governments resist them when they think the same.
We do have more personalised election campaigns but we simply don't have presidents, there is no reason to 'renew' a mandate. And yeah, I know VPs are on the ballot as well but presidential campaigns are much more personalised, so if a VP took over would they really have a mandate? Come on.
There is no such person, at the moment.
The 1,000 loss barrier is broken!
Some bad results from slow counting areas, clearly.
And LibDems gaining 410 to Labour’s 518. I did report here a while back that LD campaigners seemed exceptionally upbeat about their prospects.
You cannot be too careful with that shower...
It really really pissed me off.
Of course, he might want to try for a new 2019 - win, then quick GE as soon as possible.
I don't think that will play the same way, there was a clear mission to achieve then.
There was a lot of unhappiness over infrastructure not following housing as promised (my area, amongst others, made a Neighbourhood Plan for even more housing than requested, but the promised infrastructure didn’t follow it). Then there was speculative development (which, when people had been promised that if they voted for these NDPs and the associated housing, they could control where it went, did make people angry).
Finances were crashing. We were in a Five Counties Partnership on outsourced services that had promised better services at lower cost, but gave worse services at a higher cost.
Etc.
But it is worth noting that in last year's locals, Labour won more than twice as many councillors as the Conservatives (3,073 vs 1,403).
The overall number of Conservative councillors is bolstered by the great 2021 they had. If you just look at the latest two cycles, then while not 1996 levels, it's way better for Labour than 1991.
I know you are disappointed by today's results, but everything is going fine so just stop grumbling ok?"
We have got a good team in, who will push hard at Labour's weaknesses and they will know they are in a fight (or something similar).
He wins Sion Simon of the week, imho
Between March 6 and April 28, a dummy portfolio of 38 stocks gained 4.9% while 10 leading investment funds clocked an average loss of 0.8%, according to an experiment conducted by financial comparison site finder.com.
It wouldn’t “be long until large numbers of consumers try to use [ChatGPT] for financial gain,” Jon Ostler, Finder’s CEO, said in a statement earlier this week.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/05/investing/chatgpt-outperforms-investment-funds/index.html
I think however the answer to the question is doubtful. The unexciting answer is: No. The Tory party would not be that crazy.
If I am wrong then we are going to find out. It follows as night follows day. Boris would pick his best moment - only when he believes he will win - and go for it. He won't do it on the off chance.
Betting should take account of this. If he goes for it, facts and prices will change.
My guess: he won't at least before the next election.
Just NOT a good look, on general principles. Electorally speaking.
As for Boris, track record for retreads ain't great. Even when (the minority) they actually win.
Get a life man.
Certainly he spotted the need to try something different toward the end, which shows his flexibility and willingness to try a different approach so I can believe he wanted to do something Trussish, but he spent years unable to see or do anything about Sunak, an experienced MP with no experience of high office until Boris gave it to him? Pull the other one.
That's how it is - the Conservatives began to recover on election day in 1997 when they gained back seats in the local elections which took place on the same day as the General Election.