But Fox, more importantly- no Tories now in Oxford, Cambridge and Norwich. Three of our great, most beautiful and cultured towns, cleansed of Tories.....yippeeee
'The Lib Dems are delighted with the progress. Their 370 seats is six times that achieved by UKIP and not far from half the Tory total.' The Lib Dems gained 44 seats out of the 280 they lost in 2012.Down to one assembly member in London & overtaken by UKIP,almost wiped out in Wales with 0ne assembly member and again overtaken by UKIP and stood still in Scotland. How low do you want to set the bar ?
If you are a Lib Dem, any sign of growth is a joy to behold. It is having hope that will eventually kill them.
But Fox, more importantly- no Tories now in Oxford, Cambridge and Norwich. Three of our great, most beautiful and cultured towns, cleansed of Tories.....yippeeee
Excellent- I've just checked the election results and Cambridge becomes another viable place for me to come and return to live in- a NTT, a No Tory Town....a pleasant place where I know my neighbours are decent people.
Alongside, Oxford and Norwich I can spend the days wandering the streets, smiling serenely, knowing there isn't a Tory in sight, and if there are, they are such shameful, wretched creatures that they keep their miserable views to themselves. Places where the Newsagents stock only Guardians. Bliss.
Someone who loves their country so much they live overseas in a place that the left regards as unsafe for foreign children. Ironic?
On other news, now that the GOP race is over I'm going over the GE polls a bit, what I discovered is Trump looks a bit UKIPy, his support is almost evenly widespread, here are the latest state polls:
Safe DEM. Connecticut 40 New York 36 Minnesota 35 California 34
Swing states. North Carolina 44 Ohio 42 Florida 41 Wisconsin 34
So if he is at 40-42 nationally then it's probably not very different between states, which presents an opportunity for Hillary for a 50 state wipeout or the danger that Trump might win the election even if he loses the popular vote by a margin.
Trump does really badly in safe Republican states and quite well in safe Democratic states and about normal in most swing states, which is obviously a reflection of him losing past republican voters and gaining past democratic voters, but it doesn't change the picture much in the Electoral College.
Trump can afford to lose 10 points in states where Romney won by 60+% in 2012 as long as he keeps Republicans in swing states on his side plus his democrat switchers and he can win even if he loses the popular vote to Hillary, I estimate that the cutoff point is losing to Hillary by 4-5 points nationally and Trump would still be elected President.
'The Lib Dems are delighted with the progress. Their 370 seats is six times that achieved by UKIP and not far from half the Tory total.'
The Lib Dems gained 44 seats out of the 280 they lost in 2012.Down to one assembly member in London & overtaken by UKIP,almost wiped out in Wales with 0ne assembly member and again overtaken by UKIP and stood still in Scotland.
How low do you want to set the bar ?
The bar was set when the Lib Dems went into Coalition Government with the toxic Tories, Mr Zims. That has now been removed - and from now on the sky´s the limit!
Excellent- I've just checked the election results and Cambridge becomes another viable place for me to come and return to live in- a NTT, a No Tory Town....a pleasant place where I know my neighbours are decent people.
Alongside, Oxford and Norwich I can spend the days wandering the streets, smiling serenely, knowing there isn't a Tory in sight, and if there are, they are such shameful, wretched creatures that they keep their miserable views to themselves. Places where the Newsagents stock only Guardians. Bliss.
I like places with political diversity, it keeps you more grounded and being less out of touch with the average person.
'The Lib Dems are delighted with the progress. Their 370 seats is six times that achieved by UKIP and not far from half the Tory total.'
The Lib Dems gained 44 seats out of the 280 they lost in 2012.Down to one assembly member in London & overtaken by UKIP,almost wiped out in Wales with 0ne assembly member and again overtaken by UKIP and stood still in Scotland.
LOL After the pollsters got the 2015 GE so wrong, why is Mike now saying that, instead of the pollsters getting the 2016 Locals wrong, CON and UKIP underperformed? Is it not just possible that the pollsters are still getting it wrong but in a different
direction now?
Either way, not good news for Cameron.
You can only compare questions about voting intentions in a general election with outcomes in a general election. Governments almost always underperform their poll ratings in local elections.
But Fox, more importantly- no Tories now in Oxford, Cambridge and Norwich. Three of our great, most beautiful and cultured towns, cleansed of Tories.....yippeeee
Brislington East split Lab/Con Brislington West split Lab/LDem
I make it Lab 18 Con 9 LDem 5 Green 3
Bristol website getting a bit confused but I think it is 2 more wards to Lab and 1 to Con so Lab 22 Con 11 LDem 5 Green 3 and 1 more ward 2 LDems 1 Lab now LDems 7 Lab 23 things looking bleak for Bristol Greens
Additionally, the Tories' voteshare of 32% (as per Rallings & Thrasher) is one of the WORST performances for a newly-(re-)elected government in the past 30 years.
The only governments that have done worse in the first local elections of a cycle were the Tories in 1993 (31%) and Labour in 2006 (26%) - both of whom, of course, went onto lose the nest general election. It is also WELL down on the 38% that the Tories got in 2011.
Indeed. It is also worth noting that the NEV given to the Tories at the 2011 elections - 38% - pretty well matched their General Election share in 2015 - ie no recovery from 2011 at all. On that basis, perhaps we are looking at a 32% Con share in 2020!
On the same basis, you'd be looking at a Labour vote share of 26%.
'The Lib Dems are delighted with the progress. Their 370 seats is six times that achieved by UKIP and not far from half the Tory total.'
The Lib Dems gained 44 seats out of the 280 they lost in 2012.Down to one assembly member in London & overtaken by UKIP,almost wiped out in Wales with 0ne assembly member and again overtaken by UKIP and stood still in Scotland.
How low do you want to set the bar ?
The bar was set when the Lib Dems went into Coalition Government with the toxic Tories, Mr Zims. That has now been removed - and from now on the sky´s the limit!
Or if not the sky - 1 in London, 1 in Wales, 5th in Scotland .........
LOL After the pollsters got the 2015 GE so wrong, why is Mike now saying that, instead of the pollsters getting the 2016 Locals wrong, CON and UKIP underperformed? Is it not just possible that the pollsters are still getting it wrong but in a different
direction now?
Either way, not good news for Cameron.
You can only compare questions about voting intentions in a general election with outcomes in a general election. Governments almost always underperform their poll ratings in local elections.
Except in Scotland where moderate centre right Tories outperformed the polls and astonishingly Slab - not to mention UKIP and the LDs.
Scotland aside, Labour need a 13% swing in England to win a majority. That's bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Chance of that happening = zero. The Tories could exhume Jimmy Savile, stick him in a wheelbarrow, plonk a blue rosette on him, and push him around every constituency in Britain and they would STILL beat Labour in 2020.
Additionally, the Tories' voteshare of 32% (as per Rallings & Thrasher) is one of the WORST performances for a newly-(re-)elected government in the past 30 years.
The only governments that have done worse in the first local elections of a cycle were the Tories in 1993 (31%) and Labour in 2006 (26%) - both of whom, of course, went onto lose the nest general election. It is also WELL down on the 38% that the Tories got in 2011.
Indeed. It is also worth noting that the NEV given to the Tories at the 2011 elections - 38% - pretty well matched their General Election share in 2015 - ie no recovery from 2011 at all. On that basis, perhaps we are looking at a 32% Con share in 2020!
On the same basis, you'd be looking at a Labour vote share of 26%.
Just over 27% actually. (GB figures not UK). Labour's NEV in 2011 was 37% - compared to a GB share of 31.2% in 2015.
Scotland aside, Labour need a 13% swing in England to win a majority. That's bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Chance of that happening = zero. The Tories could exhume Jimmy Savile, stick him in a wheelbarrow, plonk a blue rosette on him, and push him around every constituency in Britain and they would STILL beat Labour in 2020.
Beating Labour would not be enough to be sure of remaining in office.
LOL After the pollsters got the 2015 GE so wrong, why is Mike now saying that, instead of the pollsters getting the 2016 Locals wrong, CON and UKIP underperformed? Is it not just possible that the pollsters are still getting it wrong but in a different
direction now?
Either way, not good news for Cameron.
You can only compare questions about voting intentions in a general election with outcomes in a general election. Governments almost always underperform their poll ratings in local elections.
Except in Scotland where moderate centre right Tories outperformed the polls and astonishingly Slab - not to mention UKIP and the LDs.
I think the situation in Scotland is a little more unique than that.
32% is a mediocre score, but to finish 1% behind the Opposition is similar to the Conservatives' performances from 1980-88, and better than Labour's performances from 2000-04. A change of government is usually preferred by leads of 10%+.
It's worth noting too that Labour's vote share in Scotland, Wales, and the London Assembly was down on 2015.
LOL After the pollsters got the 2015 GE so wrong, why is Mike now saying that, instead of the pollsters getting the 2016 Locals wrong, CON and UKIP underperformed? Is it not just possible that the pollsters are still getting it wrong but in a different
direction now?
Either way, not good news for Cameron.
You can only compare questions about voting intentions in a general election with outcomes in a general election. Governments almost always underperform their poll ratings in local elections.
Except in Scotland where moderate centre right Tories outperformed the polls and astonishingly Slab - not to mention UKIP and the LDs.
I think the situation in Scotland is a little more unique than that.
Is that a roundabout zoomer way of saying I was right?
32% is a mediocre score, but to finish 1% behind the Opposition is similar to the Conservatives' performances from 1980-88, and better than Labour's performances from 2000-04. A change of government is usually preferred by leads of 10%+.
It's worth noting too that Labour's vote share in Scotland, Wales, and the London Assembly was down on 2015.
Sssshhhhh. Given the state of the Tory party at the moment we need to keep Labour chipper about Corbyn - which when push comes to shove is the most important issue here.
The Tottenham choke continues. If Arsenal avoid defeat today I am 90 minutes from winning a very tidy sum.
all too true - unless Man C win today, we're finishing 3rd.
But I win a ton of money, so that's some consolation :-)
It was clear as soon as we didn't beat WBA that we'd finish below Arsenal.
straw grasping... arsenal draw this pm (TBC), Sunderland win in mid-week so newcastle then already relegated. If so, we might just scrape a point then against the geordies?
The Tottenham choke continues. If Arsenal avoid defeat today I am 90 minutes from winning a very tidy sum.
all too true - unless Man C win today, we're finishing 3rd.
But I win a ton of money, so that's some consolation :-)
It was clear as soon as we didn't beat WBA that we'd finish below Arsenal.
straw grasping... arsenal draw this pm (TBC), Sunderland win in mid-week so newcastle then already relegated. If so, we might just scrape a point then against the geordies?
The only way we draw at SJP is if Arsenal win today. Otherwise it's guaranteed defeat.
Dear Tyson, I wouldn't come back if I were you. I have a house in Edgbaston, in one of the roads near the university. The houses there are easily the equal of good parts of Bournemouth and Poole, and during the day it all looks fine. But after the commuters have left you are living in a city whose inhabitants have been taught to hate you. You will have a version of life in an English city in your mind, but it will be completely out of date.
32% is a mediocre score, but to finish 1% behind the Opposition is similar to the Conservatives' performances from 1980-88, and better than Labour's performances from 2000-04. A change of government is usually preferred by leads of 10%+.
It's worth noting too that Labour's vote share in Scotland, Wales, and the London Assembly was down on 2015.
Sssshhhhh. Given the state of the Tory party at the moment we need to keep Labour chipper about Corbyn - which when push comes to shove is the most important issue here.
LOL - there is something in that!!
I suspect the danger time for Corbyn will not come un till so many of the new members of the Lab get board and leave, or do not bother renewing there membership. So if most joined in May - September 15, and there membership in one year, (+ 3 mouths grace time I think) we are not talking about Dec 16 at the earliest. The time for the anti-Corbyn to strike may be May 17, in the shadow of those LG elections, for one thing it will include the Scottish LG elections which could be painful.
Perhaps the Conservative party could arrange for some internal party warfare after the budget in April 17 to take the presser of Corbyn then?
LOL After the pollsters got the 2015 GE so wrong, why is Mike now saying that, instead of the pollsters getting the 2016 Locals wrong, CON and UKIP underperformed? Is it not just possible that the pollsters are still getting it wrong but in a different
direction now?
Either way, not good news for Cameron.
You can only compare questions about voting intentions in a general election with outcomes in a general election. Governments almost always underperform their poll ratings in local elections.
Except in Scotland where moderate centre right Tories outperformed the polls and astonishingly Slab - not to mention UKIP and the LDs.
I think the situation in Scotland is a little more unique than that.
Ostensibly moderate centre right Ruth Davidson outperformed the polls and not that astonishingly SLab.
The SCons have had a higher percentage of the vote (constituency & list) than the LDs in every Holyrood election, and what would be astonishing would be if UKIP ever came ahead of them.
Although no longer a member of UKIP, a little sparrow has whispered into my little ear, that some reorganization in the upper echelons is more than pending and indeed is due to start in a matter days if not hours.
Although no longer a member of UKIP, a little sparrow has whispered into my little ear, that some reorganization in the upper echelons is more than pending and indeed is due to start in a matter days if not hours.
fine for sunny days like this people are probably out enjoyingg the sunshine whilst it lasts in the south east where the demand is.
A glorious day here in Leics, dozing in my hammock. Hard to believe that we had a frost just over a week ago. Who would want to be anywhere other than Britain when it is like this?
Although no longer a member of UKIP, a little sparrow has whispered into my little ear, that some reorganization in the upper echelons is more than pending and indeed is due to start in a matter days if not hours.
Scotland aside, Labour need a 13% swing in England to win a majority. That's bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Chance of that happening = zero. The Tories could exhume Jimmy Savile, stick him in a wheelbarrow, plonk a blue rosette on him, and push him around every constituency in Britain and they would STILL beat Labour in 2020.
Beating Labour would not be enough to be sure of remaining in office.
True, but even as the largest party the Tories would get first dibs at forming a government. It's all academic really, a hell of a lot can happen between now and then, and these results have no bearing whatsoever on a general election four years away. It's like someone else said, anyone can vote for anyone in local elections, because they don't really count. Voting for a national government and a PM is completely different. It's like apples and oranges. You cannot extrapolate local results into a general election, but I appreciate it's an exercise which keeps the media, pundits and psephologists titillated. Oh, and anoraks like us!
Taking all that into account, if you were the main opposition party looking for a springboard to the next election, or even a vague pointer, losing seats at a local level should be, and has to be, inconceivable. They should be gaining several hundreds of seats, possibly thousands, and even then, it does not necessarily transfer to a general election (see Mr Miliband for evidence of that).
The only thing Labour should be concentrating on is getting rid of Corbyn, because he will lead them into oblivion.
LOL After the pollsters got the 2015 GE so wrong, why is Mike now saying that, instead of the pollsters getting the 2016 Locals wrong, CON and UKIP underperformed? Is it not just possible that the pollsters are still getting it wrong but in a different
direction now?
Either way, not good news for Cameron.
You can only compare questions about voting intentions in a general election with outcomes in a general election. Governments almost always underperform their poll ratings in local elections.
Except in Scotland where moderate centre right Tories outperformed the polls and astonishingly Slab - not to mention UKIP and the LDs.
But that was wasn't a 'local' election it was an election for a Scottish government.
Hugely disappointing for the Tories, but hardly surprising following the internal strife over the EU, not to mention Osborne's inept performance as regards the budget. The blue team's worst performance over the past 6 years by far. Although Zac was a poor choice as theTories' nominee for London Mayor, I doubt whether anyone else could have won against this backdrop.
Agreed. There are several hundred conservative council candidates who lost out at this election purely because of Cameron and Osborne's decisions this year. Why did they call the referendum so early and not delay to Sept? It could have made these elections have better results for the Conservatives.
Excellent- I've just checked the election results and Cambridge becomes another viable place for me to come and return to live in- a NTT, a No Tory Town....a pleasant place where I know my neighbours are decent people.
Alongside, Oxford and Norwich I can spend the days wandering the streets, smiling serenely, knowing there isn't a Tory in sight, and if there are, they are such shameful, wretched creatures that they keep their miserable views to themselves. Places where the Newsagents stock only Guardians. Bliss.
After Brexit you will be classed as a foreigner and will only be allowed in if your income is > £1m p.a.
Excellent- I've just checked the election results and Cambridge becomes another viable place for me to come and return to live in- a NTT, a No Tory Town....a pleasant place where I know my neighbours are decent people.
Alongside, Oxford and Norwich I can spend the days wandering the streets, smiling serenely, knowing there isn't a Tory in sight, and if there are, they are such shameful, wretched creatures that they keep their miserable views to themselves. Places where the Newsagents stock only Guardians. Bliss.
Nah. I'm going to find out where you live, stick a Telegraph through your letterbox, and canvass you.
Excellent- I've just checked the election results and Cambridge becomes another viable place for me to come and return to live in- a NTT, a No Tory Town....a pleasant place where I know my neighbours are decent people.
Alongside, Oxford and Norwich I can spend the days wandering the streets, smiling serenely, knowing there isn't a Tory in sight, and if there are, they are such shameful, wretched creatures that they keep their miserable views to themselves. Places where the Newsagents stock only Guardians. Bliss.
Nah. I'm going to find out where you live, stick a Telegraph through your letterbox, and canvass you.
LOL After the pollsters got the 2015 GE so wrong, why is Mike now saying that, instead of the pollsters getting the 2016 Locals wrong, CON and UKIP underperformed? Is it not just possible that the pollsters are still getting it wrong but in a different
direction now?
Either way, not good news for Cameron.
You can only compare questions about voting intentions in a general election with outcomes in a general election. Governments almost always underperform their poll ratings in local elections.
Except in Scotland where moderate centre right Tories outperformed the polls and astonishingly Slab - not to mention UKIP and the LDs.
I think the situation in Scotland is a little more unique than that.
@pswidlicki: Ruth Davidson: I look forward to making common cause with the SNP in coming weeks to make the case for continued EU membership #bbcsp
Aye, wee red-faced Ruth trying desperately to get past a forest of barge poles deployed by every other pro EU party to prevent her getting on stage with them. Perhaps she'll deploy the tank.
Excellent- I've just checked the election results and Cambridge becomes another viable place for me to come and return to live in- a NTT, a No Tory Town....a pleasant place where I know my neighbours are decent people.
Alongside, Oxford and Norwich I can spend the days wandering the streets, smiling serenely, knowing there isn't a Tory in sight, and if there are, they are such shameful, wretched creatures that they keep their miserable views to themselves. Places where the Newsagents stock only Guardians. Bliss.
Nah. I'm going to find out where you live, stick a Telegraph through your letterbox, and canvass you.
Go the whole hog and make it the Daily Express ;-)
Scotland aside, Labour need a 13% swing in England to win a majority. That's bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Chance of that happening = zero. The Tories could exhume Jimmy Savile, stick him in a wheelbarrow, plonk a blue rosette on him, and push him around every constituency in Britain and they would STILL beat Labour in 2020.
Beating Labour would not be enough to be sure of remaining in office.
True, but even as the largest party the Tories would get first dibs at forming a government. It's all academic really, a hell of a lot can happen between now and then, and these results have no bearing whatsoever on a general election four years away. It's like someone else said, anyone can vote for anyone in local elections, because they don't really count. Voting for a national government and a PM is completely different. It's like apples and oranges. You cannot extrapolate local results into a general election, but I appreciate it's an exercise which keeps the media, pundits and psephologists titillated. Oh, and anoraks like us!
Taking all that into account, if you were the main opposition party looking for a springboard to the next election, or even a vague pointer, losing seats at a local level should be, and has to be, inconceivable. They should be gaining several hundreds of seats, possibly thousands, and even then, it does not necessarily transfer to a general election (see Mr Miliband for evidence of that).
The only thing Labour should be concentrating on is getting rid of Corbyn, because he will lead them into oblivion.
I agree with most of that. In particular, it is unwise to extrapolate too much from Local Elections - and that is even more the case re -election results just a year into a Parliament. Contrary to most media comment the main Opposition party has done badly at this stage in earlier Parliaments. In 1960 and 1961 despite having been in office for 9/10 years, Harold Macmillan's Tory Govt gained several hundred seats from the Labour opposition. Labour still went on to win the 1964 election.
Scotland aside, Labour need a 13% swing in England to win a majority. That's bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Chance of that happening = zero. The Tories could exhume Jimmy Savile, stick him in a wheelbarrow, plonk a blue rosette on him, and push him around every constituency in Britain and they would STILL beat Labour in 2020.
Beating Labour would not be enough to be sure of remaining in office.
True, but even as the largest party the Tories would get first dibs at forming a government. It's all academic really, a hell of a lot can happen between now and then, and these results have no bearing whatsoever on a general election four years away. It's like someone else said, anyone can vote for anyone in local elections, because they don't really count. Voting for a national government and a PM is completely different. It's like apples and oranges. You cannot extrapolate local results into a general election, but I appreciate it's an exercise which keeps the media, pundits and psephologists titillated. Oh, and anoraks like us!
Taking all that into account, if you were the main opposition party looking for a springboard to the next election, or even a vague pointer, losing seats at a local level should be, and has to be, inconceivable. They should be gaining several hundreds of seats, possibly thousands, and even then, it does not necessarily transfer to a general election (see Mr Miliband for evidence of that).
The only thing Labour should be concentrating on is getting rid of Corbyn, because he will lead them into oblivion.
I agree with most of that. In particular, it is unwise to extrapolate too much from Local Elections - and that is even more the case re -election results just a year into a Parliament. Contrary to most media comment the main Opposition party has done badly at this stage in earlier Parliaments. In 1960 and 1961 despite having been in office for 9/10 years, Harold Macmillan's Tory Govt gained several hundred seats from the Labour opposition. Labour still went on to win the 1964 election.
On your first point, this is indeed true. I don't see how some can say the Tories made no improvement between 2011 and 2015, and imply the same might be true between now and 2020 (as it was the same point in the beloved "cycle") with a straight face. Do the same comparison to 2012, and the Tories made significant progress.
Scotland aside, Labour need a 13% swing in England to win a majority. That's bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Chance of that happening = zero. The Tories could exhume Jimmy Savile, stick him in a wheelbarrow, plonk a blue rosette on him, and push him around every constituency in Britain and they would STILL beat Labour in 2020.
Beating Labour would not be enough to be sure of remaining in office.
True, but even as the largest party the Tories would get first dibs at forming a government. It's all academic really, a hell of a lot can happen between now and then, and these results have no bearing whatsoever on a general election four years away. It's like someone else said, anyone can vote for anyone in local elections, because they don't really count. Voting for a national government and a PM is completely different. It's like apples and oranges. You cannot extrapolate local results into a general election, but I appreciate it's an exercise which keeps the media, pundits and psephologists titillated. Oh, and anoraks like us!
Taking all that into account, if you were the main opposition party looking for a springboard to the next election, or even a vague pointer, losing seats at a local level should be, and has to be, inconceivable. They should be gaining several hundreds of seats, possibly thousands, and even then, it does not necessarily transfer to a general election (see Mr Miliband for evidence of that).
The only thing Labour should be concentrating on is getting rid of Corbyn, because he will lead them into oblivion.
I agree with most of that. In particular, it is unwise to extrapolate too much from Local Elections - and that is even more the case re -election results just a year into a Parliament. Contrary to most media comment the main Opposition party has done badly at this stage in earlier Parliaments. In 1960 and 1961 despite having been in office for 9/10 years, Harold Macmillan's Tory Govt gained several hundred seats from the Labour opposition. Labour still went on to win the 1964 election.
On your first point, this is indeed true. I don't see how some can say the Tories made no improvement between 2011 and 2015, and imply the same might be true between now and 2020 (as it was the same point in the beloved "cycle") with a straight face. Do the same comparison to 2012, and the Tories made significant progress.
But 2012 was year 2 of the last Parliament - ie just 3 years before the 2015 election. The equivalent point in this Parliament will be 2017.
Scotland aside, Labour need a 13% swing in England to win a majority. That's bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Chance of that happening = zero. The Tories could exhume Jimmy Savile, stick him in a wheelbarrow, plonk a blue rosette on him, and push him around every constituency in Britain and they would STILL beat Labour in 2020.
Beating Labour would not be enough to be sure of remaining in office.
True, but even as the largest party the Tories would get first dibs at forming a government. It's all academic really, a hell of a lot can happen between now and then, and these results have no bearing whatsoever on a general election four years away. It's like someone else said, anyone can vote for anyone in local elections, because they don't really count. Voting for a national government and a PM is completely different. It's like apples and oranges. You cannot extrapolate local results into a general election, but I appreciate it's an exercise which keeps the media, pundits and psephologists titillated. Oh, and anoraks like us!
Taking all that into account, if you were the main opposition party looking for a springboard to the next election, or even a vague pointer, losing seats at a local level should be, and has to be, inconceivable. They should be gaining several hundreds of seats, possibly thousands, and even then, it does not necessarily transfer to a general election (see Mr Miliband for evidence of that).
The only thing Labour should be concentrating on is getting rid of Corbyn, because he will lead them into oblivion.
I agree with most of that. In particular, it is unwise to extrapolate too much from Local Elections - and that is even more the case re -election results just a year into a Parliament. Contrary to most media comment the main Opposition party has done badly at this stage in earlier Parliaments. In 1960 and 1961 despite having been in office for 9/10 years, Harold Macmillan's Tory Govt gained several hundred seats from the Labour opposition. Labour still went on to win the 1964 election.
On your first point, this is indeed true. I don't see how some can say the Tories made no improvement between 2011 and 2015, and imply the same might be true between now and 2020 (as it was the same point in the beloved "cycle") with a straight face. Do the same comparison to 2012, and the Tories made significant progress.
But 2012 was year 2 of the last Parliament - ie just 3 years before the 2015 election. The equivalent point in this Parliament will be 2017.
I think you missed the whole point of what I was saying.
LOL After the pollsters got the 2015 GE so wrong, why is Mike now saying that, instead of the pollsters getting the 2016 Locals wrong, CON and UKIP underperformed? Is it not just possible that the pollsters are still getting it wrong but in a different
direction now?
Either way, not good news for Cameron.
You can only compare questions about voting intentions in a general election with outcomes in a general election. Governments almost always underperform their poll ratings in local elections.
Except in Scotland where moderate centre right Tories outperformed the polls and astonishingly Slab - not to mention UKIP and the LDs.
I think the situation in Scotland is a little more unique than that.
Scotland aside, Labour need a 13% swing in England to win a majority. That's bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Chance of that happening = zero. The Tories could exhume Jimmy Savile, stick him in a wheelbarrow, plonk a blue rosette on him, and push him around every constituency in Britain and they would STILL beat Labour in 2020.
Beating Labour would not be enough to be sure of remaining in office.
Taking all that into account, if you were the main opposition party looking for a springboard to the next election, or even a vague pointer, losing seats at a local level should be, and has to be, inconceivable. They should be gaining several hundreds of seats, possibly thousands, and even then, it does not necessarily transfer to a general election (see Mr Miliband for evidence of that).
The only thing Labour should be concentrating on is getting rid of Corbyn, because he will lead them into oblivion.
I agree with most of that. In particular, it is unwise to extrapolate too much from Local Elections - and that is even more the case re -election results just a year into a Parliament. Contrary to most media comment the main Opposition party has done badly at this stage in earlier Parliaments. In 1960 and 1961 despite having been in office for 9/10 years, Harold Macmillan's Tory Govt gained several hundred seats from the Labour opposition. Labour still went on to win the 1964 election.
On your first point, this is indeed true. I don't see how some can say the Tories made no improvement between 2011 and 2015, and imply the same might be true between now and 2020 (as it was the same point in the beloved "cycle") with a straight face. Do the same comparison to 2012, and the Tories made significant progress.
But 2012 was year 2 of the last Parliament - ie just 3 years before the 2015 election. The equivalent point in this Parliament will be 2017.
I think you missed the whole point of what I was saying.
I suspect you have done likewise. 2012 cannot reasonably be compared to 2016 because they relate to different stages of the General Election cycle!
Scotland aside, Labour need a 13% swing in England to win a majority. That's bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Chance of that happening = zero. The Tories could exhume Jimmy Savile, stick him in a wheelbarrow, plonk a blue rosette on him, and push him around every constituency in Britain and they would STILL beat Labour in 2020.
Beating Labour would not be enough to be sure of remaining in office.
The only thing Labour should be concentrating on is getting rid of Corbyn, because he will lead them into oblivion.
I agree with most of that. In particular, it is unwise to extrapolate too much from Local Elections - and that is even more the case re -election results just a year into a Parliament. Contrary to most media comment the main Opposition party has done badly at this stage in earlier Parliaments. In 1960 and 1961 despite having been in office for 9/10 years, Harold Macmillan's Tory Govt gained several hundred seats from the Labour opposition. Labour still went on to win the 1964 election.
It just goes to prove the point, even more perhaps, that council elections have no real bearing on a future general election. It seems you can gain plenty of seats and go on to lose (Foot, Hague, Miliband, etc) or lose seats and go on to lose ( see Corbyn in 2020), or very rarely, lose seats and still go on to win, like you say, in 1964 (although Labour had nearly 40 Scottish seats going into that election). Surely the point here is that the main opposition party HAS to make gains, substantial ones, all over the UK, to at least boost morale and try and change the media narrative. The London Mayoralty is just noise, because as we all know, London is heavily Labour, and Boris avoided political gravity, despite his party's relative unpopularity in the capital.
None of this even starts to address Labour's annihilation in Scotland, where the public were voting for a government, not just relatively insignificant local seats. Without Scotland, the simple arithmetic is impossible for Labour, unless, by some miracle, they find another Tony Blair to sweep Middle England. I think someone said Labour would need to take Uxbridge off Boris Johnson to get a majority of one, or Justin Greening's Putney (majority of 10,000). Another fact is this. Since 1979, the public have only voted for two changes of government (OK, three if you separate coalition and majority Tory rule), which makes it even tougher for Labour.
No matter how you cut it, it's close to impossible for Labour to win the next election outright, and would take a miracle to even be the largest party.
Scotland aside, Labour need a 13% swing in England to win a majority. That's bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997. Chance of that happening = zero. The Tories could exhume Jimmy Savile, stick him in a wheelbarrow, plonk a blue rosette on him, and push him around every constituency in Britain and they would STILL beat Labour in 2020.
Beating Labour would not be enough to be sure of remaining in office.
Taking all that into account, if you were the main opposition party looking for a springboard to the next election, or even a vague pointer, losing seats at a local level should be, and has to be, inconceivable. They should be gaining several hundreds of seats, possibly thousands, and even then, it does not necessarily transfer to a general election (see Mr Miliband for evidence of that).
The only thing Labour should be concentrating on is getting rid of Corbyn, because he will lead them into oblivion.
I agree with most of that. In particular, it is unwise to extrapolate too much from Local Elections - and that is even more the case re -election results just a year into a Parliament. Contrary to most media comment the main Opposition party has done badly at this stage in earlier Parliaments. In 1960 and 1961 despite having been in office for 9/10 years, Harold Macmillan's Tory Govt gained several hundred seats from the Labour opposition. Labour still went on to win the 1964 election.
On your first point, this is indeed true. I don't see how some can say the Tories made no improvement between 2011 and 2015, and imply the same might be true between now and 2020 (as it was the same point in the beloved "cycle") with a straight face. Do the same comparison to 2012, and the Tories made significant progress.
But 2012 was year 2 of the last Parliament - ie just 3 years before the 2015 election. The equivalent point in this Parliament will be 2017.
I think you missed the whole point of what I was saying.
I suspect you have done likewise. 2012 cannot reasonably be compared to 2016 because they relate to different stages of the General Election cycle!
Nope, since I don't believe a cycle like this exists. The results of 2012 were driven more by events than the cycle.
' Places where the Newsagents stock only Guardians. Bliss.' You'll have to hurry up with circulation of 160,000 and plummeting you don't have much time. Surely Islington would be a better option and must account for at least half the circulation.
Scotland and Wales...who has been serving in Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliamente since their creation in 1999 without interrumption? It's around 15% in both chambers
Scottish Parliament: 19 out of 129
SNP: Bruce Crawford, Roseanna Cunningham, Fergus Ewing, Linda Fabiani, Christine Grahame, Fiona Hyslop, Michael Matheson, Alex Neil, Shona Robison, Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney, Sandra White Labour: Jackie Baillie, Johann Lamont, Lewis Macdonald, Ken Macintosh, Elaine Smith Conservative: Alex Johnstone Liberal Democrat: Tavish Scott
Welsh Assembly: 9 out of 60
Labour: Carwyn Jones, John Griffiths, Lynne Neagle, Jane Hutt, Ann Jones Plaid: Elin Jones,Daffyd Elis-Thomas LD: Kirsty Williams Con: David Melding
He comes the Trump switch-a-roo...Higher taxes on the rich, higher minimum wage.
Such a Trump platform, higher taxes on the wealthy, a higher minimum wage and anti immigration will simply see more wealthy Republicans vote Libertarian or stay at home without adding enough extra working class and Democratic voters he has not already got to replace them
On other news, now that the GOP race is over I'm going over the GE polls a bit, what I discovered is Trump looks a bit UKIPy, his support is almost evenly widespread, here are the latest state polls:
Safe DEM. Connecticut 40 New York 36 Minnesota 35 California 34
Swing states. North Carolina 44 Ohio 42 Florida 41 Wisconsin 34
So if he is at 40-42 nationally then it's probably not very different between states, which presents an opportunity for Hillary for a 50 state wipeout or the danger that Trump might win the election even if he loses the popular vote by a margin.
Trump does really badly in safe Republican states and quite well in safe Democratic states and about normal in most swing states, which is obviously a reflection of him losing past republican voters and gaining past democratic voters, but it doesn't change the picture much in the Electoral College.
Trump can afford to lose 10 points in states where Romney won by 60+% in 2012 as long as he keeps Republicans in swing states on his side plus his democrat switchers and he can win even if he loses the popular vote to Hillary, I estimate that the cutoff point is losing to Hillary by 4-5 points nationally and Trump would still be elected President.
With latest polls showing Trump neck and neck with Hillary in Georgia and losing to her in Utah the idea he can lose the election by 4-5 points and win is absurd, the only president in recent years who lost the popular vote was George W Bush and that by less than 1% and as 2012 showed the EC now favours the Democrats not the GOP
On other news, now that the GOP race is over I'm going over the GE polls a bit, what I discovered is Trump looks a bit UKIPy, his support is almost evenly widespread, here are the latest state polls:
...
Trump can afford to lose 10 points in states where Romney won by 60+% in 2012 as long as he keeps Republicans in swing states on his side plus his democrat switchers and he can win even if he loses the popular vote to Hillary, I estimate that the cutoff point is losing to Hillary by 4-5 points nationally and Trump would still be elected President.
I really don't understand how a result like Clinton 49-44 Trump can lead to a Trump win. Those safe GOP states aren't just irrelevant losses - some of them like Arizona have a meaningful number of electoral votes. My totally indicative guess is that 49-44 would cause a best-case result like Trump = Romney + Florida + Ohio - North Carolina. 238 electoral votes, not very close to a win. A harsher guess would be Romney - NC - Arizona, for 180 EVs.
On other news, now that the GOP race is over I'm going over the GE polls a bit, what I discovered is Trump looks a bit UKIPy, his support is almost evenly widespread, here are the latest state polls:
...
Trump can afford to lose 10 points in states where Romney won by 60+% in 2012 as long as he keeps Republicans in swing states on his side plus his democrat switchers and he can win even if he loses the popular vote to Hillary, I estimate that the cutoff point is losing to Hillary by 4-5 points nationally and Trump would still be elected President.
I really don't understand how a result like Clinton 49-44 Trump can lead to a Trump win. Those safe GOP states aren't just irrelevant losses - some of them like Arizona have a meaningful number of electoral votes. My totally indicative guess is that 49-44 would cause a best-case result like Trump = Romney + Florida + Ohio - North Carolina. 238 electoral votes, not very close to a win. A harsher guess would be Romney - NC - Arizona, for 180 EVs.
Or minus Georgia and Utah too for 158, the worst GOP total since 1964
Comments
It is having hope that will eventually kill them.
Brislington West split Lab/LDem
I make it Lab 18 Con 9 LDem 5 Green 3
Safe GOP states.
Idaho 48
Indiana 48
Georgia 42
Utah 38
Arizona 37
Safe DEM.
Connecticut 40
New York 36
Minnesota 35
California 34
Swing states.
North Carolina 44
Ohio 42
Florida 41
Wisconsin 34
So if he is at 40-42 nationally then it's probably not very different between states, which presents an opportunity for Hillary for a 50 state wipeout or the danger that Trump might win the election even if he loses the popular vote by a margin.
Trump does really badly in safe Republican states and quite well in safe Democratic states and about normal in most swing states, which is obviously a reflection of him losing past republican voters and gaining past democratic voters, but it doesn't change the picture much in the Electoral College.
Trump can afford to lose 10 points in states where Romney won by 60+% in 2012 as long as he keeps Republicans in swing states on his side plus his democrat switchers and he can win even if he loses the popular vote to Hillary, I estimate that the cutoff point is losing to Hillary by 4-5 points nationally and Trump would still be elected President.
You can only compare questions about voting intentions in a general election with outcomes in a general election. Governments almost always underperform their poll ratings in local elections.
It was clear as soon as we didn't beat WBA that we'd finish below Arsenal.
so Lab 22 Con 11 LDem 5 Green 3
and 1 more ward 2 LDems 1 Lab now LDems 7 Lab 23
things looking bleak for Bristol Greens
South Wales: Lab hold
Gwent: Lab gain from Ind
North Wales: Plaid gain from Ind
Dyfed-Powys: Plaid gain from Con
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2016/scotland
Lab 27 Con 11 LDem 7 Green 3
Scotland heavily for Remain looks nailed on.
Wales could be more split, but with Lab, Plaid and LDs on top of part of the Con, should also go for Remain, even on a low turnout.
It's worth noting too that Labour's vote share in Scotland, Wales, and the London Assembly was down on 2015.
Edit - Is it possible to be comparatively unique?
clare 0-12 waterford 2-09
Many thanks to whoever engineered it.
Young farmers want to leave the EU...
http://www.fwi.co.uk/farmlife/young-farmers-back-brexit.htm
Corrected figures for Bristol as it stands now
Lab 24 Con 10 LDem 7 Green 3
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
The Tory candidate for Mayor Charles Lucas failed to retain his seat in Clifton.
I suspect the danger time for Corbyn will not come un till so many of the new members of the Lab get board and leave, or do not bother renewing there membership. So if most joined in May - September 15, and there membership in one year, (+ 3 mouths grace time I think) we are not talking about Dec 16 at the earliest. The time for the anti-Corbyn to strike may be May 17, in the shadow of those LG elections, for one thing it will include the Scottish LG elections which could be painful.
Perhaps the Conservative party could arrange for some internal party warfare after the budget in April 17 to take the presser of Corbyn then?
The SCons have had a higher percentage of the vote (constituency & list) than the LDs in every Holyrood election, and what would be astonishing would be if UKIP ever came ahead of them.
Mr. K, any more juicy details?
Lab 26 Con 10 LDem 7 Green 5
Waterford threw their lead away.
Taking all that into account, if you were the main opposition party looking for a springboard to the next election, or even a vague pointer, losing seats at a local level should be, and has to be, inconceivable. They should be gaining several hundreds of seats, possibly thousands, and even then, it does not necessarily transfer to a general election (see Mr Miliband for evidence of that).
The only thing Labour should be concentrating on is getting rid of Corbyn, because he will lead them into oblivion.
The Scottish local elections are next year.
Lab 28 Con 11 LDem 7 Green 5
@pswidlicki: Ruth Davidson: I look forward to making common cause with the SNP in coming weeks to make the case for continued EU membership #bbcsp
' Places where the Newsagents stock only Guardians. Bliss.'
You'll have to hurry up with circulation of 160,000 and plummeting you don't have much time.
Surely Islington would be a better option and must account for at least half the circulation.
Soon it will only be available under the counter from specialist suppliers
Lab 31 Con 11 LDem 7 Green 6
"On my plan they're going down. But by the time it's negotiated, they'll go up," Mr Trump told ABC's This Week.
He also apparently reversed his position on the minimum wage, telling the programme: "I'm allowed to change."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36239546
He comes the Trump switch-a-roo...Higher taxes on the rich, higher minimum wage.
None of this even starts to address Labour's annihilation in Scotland, where the public were voting for a government, not just relatively insignificant local seats. Without Scotland, the simple arithmetic is impossible for Labour, unless, by some miracle, they find another Tony Blair to sweep Middle England. I think someone said Labour would need to take Uxbridge off Boris Johnson to get a majority of one, or Justin Greening's Putney (majority of 10,000). Another fact is this. Since 1979, the public have only voted for two changes of government (OK, three if you separate coalition and majority Tory rule), which makes it even tougher for Labour.
No matter how you cut it, it's close to impossible for Labour to win the next election outright, and would take a miracle to even be the largest party.
Tory held Horfield ward by 1 vote.
currently
Lab 37 Con 12 LDem 7 Green 7
3 wards 7 seats to go
It's around 15% in both chambers
Scottish Parliament: 19 out of 129
SNP: Bruce Crawford, Roseanna Cunningham, Fergus Ewing, Linda Fabiani, Christine Grahame, Fiona Hyslop, Michael Matheson, Alex Neil, Shona Robison, Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney, Sandra White
Labour: Jackie Baillie, Johann Lamont, Lewis Macdonald, Ken Macintosh, Elaine Smith
Conservative: Alex Johnstone
Liberal Democrat: Tavish Scott
Welsh Assembly: 9 out of 60
Labour: Carwyn Jones, John Griffiths, Lynne Neagle, Jane Hutt, Ann Jones
Plaid: Elin Jones,Daffyd Elis-Thomas
LD: Kirsty Williams
Con: David Melding
Lab 37 Con 12 Green 9 LDem 7
Previous council Lab 30, Con 16, Green 14, LD 9, UKIP 1
Lab 37 Con 12 Green 11 LDem 7
My totally indicative guess is that 49-44 would cause a best-case result like Trump = Romney + Florida + Ohio - North Carolina. 238 electoral votes, not very close to a win. A harsher guess would be Romney - NC - Arizona, for 180 EVs.