I realise the Corbyn must resign idea is a popular one after each and every election... or referendum... but it doesn't really have much effect anymore.
It is said by much the same people who said it before, as they were ignored and turned out to be wrong in some of their assumptions then I don't see why they should be listened too now regardless of how right they think they are.
For a lot of people on here a left wing Labour party is toxic, for a lot of people in the country it is exactly what they've been waiting for. After being disenfranchised for years I don't think a 'slightly disappointing' local election result is going to make people despair after all the progress made in the last few years.
You are super serving part of the core vote. Winning elections is about getting enough people to vote for you, not delighting a minority.
Which is part of the journey Labour has undertaken, expanding its voting base under Corbyn. Not popular for some on the right of the party who want their interests served but more in sync with the electorate. It has been made difficult by those who aren't having their interests served but we can't abandon a project which has given us electoral returns so far because small groups are unhappy about the direction.
The core vote mostly did turn out but it is Corbyn who seems to have been a big motivator in bringing in other votes, the idea that binning him and going to a more Blairite approach would work is false IMO.
But on the one hand Corbyn brings together a coalition of Old Labour, multi-culti Labour, far left Labour, green, centrist labour nose holders, and some former labour voting non voters, on the other he also brings together a coalition against who don't want the above in power, hence Theresa May is polling the Highest Tory numbers in a generation.
I realise the Corbyn must resign idea is a popular one after each and every election... or referendum... but it doesn't really have much effect anymore.
It is said by much the same people who said it before, as they were ignored and turned out to be wrong in some of their assumptions then I don't see why they should be listened too now regardless of how right they think they are.
For a lot of people on here a left wing Labour party is toxic, for a lot of people in the country it is exactly what they've been waiting for. After being disenfranchised for years I don't think a 'slightly disappointing' local election result is going to make people despair after all the progress made in the last few years.
I certainly take your point about the Corbyn must resign thing, but I take issue with the too often used 'disenfranchised' to describe the situation the far left feel. They were not. They had the opportunity to vote for far leftists up and down the country, or stand themselves. That Labour were offering sonething more middle ground didn't disenfranchise anyone.
Well no more than you get centrists or Blairites complaining now about the same but if you prefer different wording I am fine with that. I can understand the wording as if your ideas are locked out of both main parties then they take very little effect.
Although I suppose there are counter arguments regarding UKIP and then to a lesser extent the Greens have seen their issues adopted, although a far slower process!
Certainly centrists aren't disenfranchised either. They have options if they cannot support the current direction of the party.
Like what? There is nowhere to go. Lib Dem’s dead, still tarnished by coalition. Tories heading right, drunk on Brexit.
I realise the Corbyn must resign idea is a popular one after each and every election... or referendum... but it doesn't really have much effect anymore.
It is said by much the same people who said it before, as they were ignored and turned out to be wrong in some of their assumptions then I don't see why they should be listened too now regardless of how right they think they are.
For a lot of people on here a left wing Labour party is toxic, for a lot of people in the country it is exactly what they've been waiting for. After being disenfranchised for years I don't think a 'slightly disappointing' local election result is going to make people despair after all the progress made in the last few years.
I certainly take your point about the Corbyn must resign thing, but I take issue with the too often used 'disenfranchised' to describe the situation the far left feel. They were not. They had the opportunity to vote for far leftists up and down the country, or stand themselves. That Labour were offering sonething more middle ground didn't disenfranchise anyone.
Well no more than you get centrists or Blairites complaining now about the same but if you prefer different wording I am fine with that. I can understand the wording as if your ideas are locked out of both main parties then they take very little effect.
Although I suppose there are counter arguments regarding UKIP and then to a lesser extent the Greens have seen their issues adopted, although a far slower process!
Certainly centrists aren't disenfranchised either. They have options if they cannot support the current direction of the party.
Like what? There is nowhere to go. Lib Dem’s dead, still tarnished by coalition. Tories heading right, drunk on Brexit.
They can form a new party then. The point was they have a vote, and that they don't like the options doesn't change that. People moan every day about not liking any of the options presented to them, it doesn't mean they are disenfrachised
I think Labour will be disappointed overall. Plymouth which they are heralding as a success stems from the loss of the UKIP seats won last time around, and the PB // Polling Matters podcast called this for Labour well in advance. Conversely across the midlands Tories have picked up seats where UKIP have fallen back.
Labour don't seem to have delivered the votes or councils across a large number of targets including A lot of London, but also places like Walsall which was being talked up on Radio 4 earlier in the week. I think it partly down to expectations management being poor, and partly down to motivation to vote, both which stem from the style of Corbyn support. The party now has such enthusiastic supporters, that they over estimate support, and the other is motivation to vote, which is more patchy for labour. Undoubtedly Labour supporters and voters are more enthused to vote for Corbyn. Unfortunately for Labour he also seems to motivate all other voters to coalesce around the conservatives in order to vote against him.
In 2003 there was a famous headline after similarly 'meh' council elections that the Tories 'should not confuse relief with joy.'
These results are less impressive for Labour than those were for the Conservatives. At the moment, they are not a party on the path to power.
Factoid of the day. The Tories gained in 13 consecutive sets of local elections leading up to 2010.
And they lost massively in the years up to 1997. Parties in power generally get hollowed out because so many vote against things. This is what makes these results pretty good for the Tories. They will almost certainly go to a net loss of councillors later today but it will be tiny, less than 50.
I realise the Corbyn must resign idea is a popular one after each and every election... or referendum... but it doesn't really have much effect anymore.
It is said by much the same people who said it before, as they were ignored and turned out to be wrong in some of their assumptions then I don't see why they should be listened too now regardless of how right they think they are.
For a lot of people on here a left wing Labour party is toxic, for a lot of people in the country it is exactly what they've been waiting for. After being disenfranchised for years I don't think a 'slightly disappointing' local election result is going to make people despair after all the progress made in the last few years.
I certainly take your point about the Corbyn must resign thing, but I take issue with the too often used 'disenfranchised' to describe the situation the far left feel. They were not. They had the opportunity to vote for far leftists up and down the country, or stand themselves. That Labour were offering sonething more middle ground didn't disenfranchise anyone.
Well no more than you get centrists or Blairites complaining now about the same but if you prefer different wording I am fine with that. I can understand the wording as if your ideas are locked out of both main parties then they take very little effect.
Although I suppose there are counter arguments regarding UKIP and then to a lesser extent the Greens have seen their issues adopted, although a far slower process!
Certainly centrists aren't disenfranchised either. They have options if they cannot support the current direction of the party.
Like what? There is nowhere to go. Lib Dem’s dead, still tarnished by coalition. Tories heading right, drunk on Brexit.
They can form a new party then. The point was they have a vote, and that they don't like the options doesn't change that.
Forming a new party? You might as well give up on politics altogether under FPTP. Labour needs centrists to win. Always has, always will. Corbyn and co need to wake up to that.
I realise the Corbyn must resign idea is a popular one after each and every election... or referendum... but it doesn't really have much effect anymore.
It is said by much the same people who said it before, as they were ignored and turned out to be wrong in some of their assumptions then I don't see why they should be listened too now regardless of how right they think they are.
For a lot of people on here a left wing Labour party is toxic, for a lot of people in the country it is exactly what they've been waiting for. After being disenfranchised for years I don't think a 'slightly disappointing' local election result is going to make people despair after all the progress made in the last few years.
What progress?
Labour are two seats ahead of where they were in 2010, at the end of 13 years in power and against a divided opposition. Labour have rallied the opposition to one party, alienated their core support outside London, removed all experienced heavyweights from frontline politics and replaced them with what look like overgrown students from the University of Gloucestershire politics course, failed to agree a coherent position on Brexit, made a number of policy promises that they have admitted despite earlier claims to the contrary were uncosted and they never had any intention of implementing, and gained the support of the former leader of the BNP. On top of that, on tonight's evidence they aren't making significant progress even in the country's main conurbations, unlike just about every other left-wing party in the world.
The saving grace for Labour is that May is almost as shite. But an opposition built on the government's weakness with no strength of its own is a poor opposition as Cameron and Kinnock both found to their cost.
What progress?
Over 3 million extra votes, set against a backdrop of the right of party trying to tear it apart to stop the left leading the party and setting policy.
As I understand if we take the leader of the BNP at his word then he would vote for Labour if May was going to start some big conflcit over Syria, as that doesn't seem likely I guess he isn't voting for us. Although if we don't take him at his word then we don't have any evidence he is voting for us.. Works well for propaganda purposes but when you break it down it seems kind of meaningless.
A bunch of people resigned from the cabinet, their choice, not a massive loss in some cases. Some new talent given a chance though so could work out well. Also if they don't like the direction of the party and would rather plan leadership elections for after elections it is probably for the best.
Thanks to Mr. F and Mr. Pulpstar for their tips on Barnet and Sutton. Boo hiss to Labour failing to take Trafford. Proof, were it needed, that Labour are bad for prosperity!
I realise the Corbyn must resign idea is a popular one after each and every election... or referendum... but it doesn't really have much effect anymore.
It is said by much the same people who said it before, as they were ignored and turned out to be wrong in some of their assumptions then I don't see why they should be listened too now regardless of how right they think they are.
For a lot of people on here a left wing Labour party is toxic, for a lot of people in the country it is exactly what they've been waiting for. After being disenfranchised for years I don't think a 'slightly disappointing' local election result is going to make people despair after all the progress made in the last few years.
What progress?
Labour are two seats ahead of where they were in 2010, at the end of 13 years in power and against a divided opposition. Labour have rallied the opposition to one party, alienated their core support outside London, removed all experienced heavyweights from frontline politics and replaced them with what look like overgrown students from the University of Gloucestershire politics course, failed to agree a coherent position on Brexit, made a number of policy promises that they have admitted despite earlier claims to the contrary were uncosted and they never had any intention of implementing, and gained the support of the former leader of the BNP. On top of that, on tonight's evidence they aren't making significant progress even in the country's main conurbations, unlike just about every other left-wing party in the world.
The saving grace for Labour is that May is almost as shite. But an opposition built on the government's weakness with no strength of its own is a poor opposition as Cameron and Kinnock both found to their cost.
What progress?
Over 3 million extra votes, set against a backdrop of the right of party trying to tear it apart to stop the left leading the party and setting policy.
As I understand if we take the leader of the BNP at his word then he would vote for Labour if May was going to start some big conflcit over Syria, as that doesn't seem likely I guess he isn't voting for us. Although if we don't take him at his word then we don't have any evidence he is voting for us.. Works well for propaganda purposes but when you break it down it seems kind of meaningless.
A bunch of people resigned from the cabinet, their choice, not a massive loss in some cases. Some new talent given a chance though so could work out well. Also if they don't like the direction of the party and would rather plan leadership elections for after elections it is probably for the best.
I realise the Corbyn must resign idea is a popular one after each and every election... or referendum... but it doesn't really have much effect anymore.
It is said by much the same people who said it before, as they were ignored and turned out to be wrong in some of their assumptions then I don't see why they should be listened too now regardless of how right they think they are.
For a lot of people on here a left wing Labour party is toxic, for a lot of people in the country it is exactly what they've been waiting for. After being disenfranchised for years I don't think a 'slightly disappointing' local election result is going to make people despair after all the progress made in the last few years.
I certainly take your point about the Corbyn must resign thing, but I take issue with the too often used 'disenfranchised' to describe the situation the far left feel. They were not. They had the opportunity to vote for far leftists up and down the country, or stand themselves. That Labour were offering sonething more middle ground didn't disenfranchise anyone.
Well no more than you get centrists or Blairites complaining now about the same but if you prefer different wording I am fine with that. I can understand the wording as if your ideas are locked out of both main parties then they take very little effect.
Although I suppose there are counter arguments regarding UKIP and then to a lesser extent the Greens have seen their issues adopted, although a far slower process!
Certainly centrists aren't disenfranchised either. They have options if they cannot support the current direction of the party.
Like what? There is nowhere to go. Lib Dem’s dead, still tarnished by coalition. Tories heading right, drunk on Brexit.
They can form a new party then. The point was they have a vote, and that they don't like the options doesn't change that.
Forming a new party? You might as well give up on politics altogether under FPTP. Labour needs centrists to win. Always has, always will. Corbyn and co need to wake up to that.
And none of that has anything to do with disenfranchisement, which was the point. You're not being starved if you're offered 3 meals you don't like, and it might be hard and unrewarding but you can try making a meal yourself. Or more likely, suck it up and eat it.
A bunch of people resigned from the cabinet, their choice, not a massive loss in some cases. Some new talent given a chance though so could work out well.
I agree there were some duds under Miliband, but Cat Smith, Angela Rayner, Richard Burgon and the others are talent?!!'
We're seriously screwed if that's the level of political talent we have going forward. And the worrying thing is, it is, and not just in Labour.
Results are still coming in from across England, so this is essentially a half-time report. But the picture emerging is that Labour has gone backwards slightly from 2014, missed most of its targets (including all of them in London) and gained few seats. Opposition parties are supposed to do well in midterm contests, and these aren’t the results of one that’s about to storm the next general election.
I think Labour will be disappointed overall. Plymouth which they are heralding as a success stems from the loss of the UKIP seats won last time around, and the PB // Polling Matters podcast called this for Labour well in advance. Conversely across the midlands Tories have picked up seats where UKIP have fallen back.
Labour don't seem to have delivered the votes or councils across a large number of targets including A lot of London, but also places like Walsall which was being talked up on Radio 4 earlier in the week. I think it partly down to expectations management being poor, and partly down to motivation to vote, both which stem from the style of Corbyn support. The party now has such enthusiastic supporters, that they over estimate support, and the other is motivation to vote, which is more patchy for labour. Undoubtedly Labour supporters and voters are more enthused to vote for Corbyn. Unfortunately for Labour he also seems to motivate all other voters to coalesce around the conservatives in order to vote against him.
In 2003 there was a famous headline after similarly 'meh' council elections that the Tories 'should not confuse relief with joy.'
These results are less impressive for Labour than those were for the Conservatives. At the moment, they are not a party on the path to power.
Factoid of the day. The Tories gained in 13 consecutive sets of local elections leading up to 2010.
And they lost massively in the years up to 1997. Parties in power generally get hollowed out because so many vote against things. This is what makes these results pretty good for the Tories. They will almost certainly go to a net loss of councillors later today but it will be tiny, less than 50.
I think the Tories will make a net gain, among the councils still to declare.
This government is divided, incompetent and destructive. Corbyn Labour cannot defeat it. The far left guarantees that the likes of Johnson and Rees Mogg will decide this country’s future. The only way to prevent this is to loosen the far left’s control of the Labour party. That’s why I jumped back into the cesspit. Today I feel totally vindicated.
On Barnet - it wasn’t just Jews that stopped Labour winning, it was their friends and neighbours, too. That is what solidarity looks like. The local party - which is faultless on anti-Semitism - paid for the national leadership’s sins.
A bunch of people resigned from the cabinet, their choice, not a massive loss in some cases. Some new talent given a chance though so could work out well.
I agree there were some duds under Miliband, but Cat Smith, Angela Rayner, Richard Burgon and the others are talent?!!'
We're seriously screwed if that's the level of political talent we have going forward. And the worrying thing is, it is, and not just in Labour.
Fox, Grayling, Liddington, Williamson... no, its not just a Labour problem.
I realise the Corbyn must resign idea is a popular one after each and every election... or referendum... but it doesn't really have much effect anymore.
It is said by much the same people who said it before, as they were ignored and turned out to be wrong in some of their assumptions then I don't see why they should be listened too now regardless of how right they think they are.
For a lot of people on here a left wing Labour party is toxic, for a lot of people in the country it is exactly what they've been waiting for. After being disenfranchised for years I don't think a 'slightly disappointing' local election result is going to make people despair after all the progress made in the last few years.
You are super serving part of the core vote. Winning elections is about getting enough people to vote for you, not delighting a minority.
Which is part of the journey Labour has undertaken, expanding its voting base under Corbyn. Not popular for some on the right of the party who want their interests served but more in sync with the electorate. It has been made difficult by those who aren't having their interests served but we can't abandon a project which has given us electoral returns so far because small groups are unhappy about the direction.
The core vote mostly did turn out but it is Corbyn who seems to have been a big motivator in bringing in other votes, the idea that binning him and going to a more Blairite approach would work is false IMO.
But on the one hand Corbyn brings together a coalition of Old Labour, multi-culti Labour, far left Labour, green, centrist labour nose holders, and some former labour voting non voters, on the other he also brings together a coalition against who don't want the above in power, hence Theresa May is polling the Highest Tory numbers in a generation.
This is true but I think May's gains came largely from Brexit and UKIP whereas Corbyn seemed to bring in non voters, greens, Lib Dems as well as those to do with Brexit. I think without a Brexit bounce and the collapse of UKIP Labour may well have won its first election under Corbyn.
A bunch of people resigned from the cabinet, their choice, not a massive loss in some cases. Some new talent given a chance though so could work out well.
I agree there were some duds under Miliband, but Cat Smith, Angela Rayner, Richard Burgon and the others are talent?!!'
We're seriously screwed if that's the level of political talent we have going forward. And the worrying thing is, it is, and not just in Labour.
Fox, Grayling, Liddington, Williamson... no, its not just a Labour problem.
Some bizarrely good Conservative results in Grimsby.
what's the bizzare? yesterday everyone thought it was Labour gain territory. but it's white, and leave, and the Tories made gains in votes if not seats in the GE
I realise the Corbyn must resign idea is a popular one after each and every election... or referendum... but it doesn't really have much effect anymore.
It is said by much the same people who said it before, as they were ignored and turned out to be wrong in some of their assumptions then I don't see why they should be listened too now regardless of how right they think they are.
For a lot of people on here a left wing Labour party is toxic, for a lot of people in the country it is exactly what they've been waiting for. After being disenfranchised for years I don't think a 'slightly disappointing' local election result is going to make people despair after all the progress made in the last few years.
You are super serving part of the core vote. Winning elections is about getting enough people to vote for you, not delighting a minority.
Which is part of the journey Labour has undertaken, expanding its voting base under Corbyn. Not popular for some on the right of the party who want their interests served but more in sync with the electorate. It has been made difficult by those who aren't having their interests served but we can't abandon a project which has given us electoral returns so far because small groups are unhappy about the direction.
The core vote mostly did turn out but it is Corbyn who seems to have been a big motivator in bringing in other votes, the idea that binning him and going to a more Blairite approach would work is false IMO.
But on the one hand Corbyn brings together a coalition of Old Labour, multi-culti Labour, far left Labour, green, centrist labour nose holders, and some former labour voting non voters, on the other he also brings together a coalition against who don't want the above in power, hence Theresa May is polling the Highest Tory numbers in a generation.
This is true but I think May's gains came largely from Brexit and UKIP whereas Corbyn seemed to bring in non voters, greens, Lib Dems as well as those to do with Brexit. I think without a Brexit bounce and the collapse of UKIP Labour may well have won its first election under Corbyn.
Morning all, I deliberately didn't pick a betting side this election as I wasn't sure how it was going to go. The blues and the yellows however have achieved what they needed to in Sutton and Wandsworth.
A bunch of people resigned from the cabinet, their choice, not a massive loss in some cases. Some new talent given a chance though so could work out well.
I agree there were some duds under Miliband, but Cat Smith, Angela Rayner, Richard Burgon and the others are talent?!!'
We're seriously screwed if that's the level of political talent we have going forward. And the worrying thing is, it is, and not just in Labour.
Fox, Grayling, Liddington, Williamson... no, its not just a Labour problem.
Leave David Lidington alone.
He was just embarrassing on the Today program yesterday morning.
Although these results are not particularly good for Labour, they are better, relatively speaking, than they were in the general election last year. So you certainly can’t argue that the Labour party has not made any progress as compared with last year’s general election [where the Tories were ahead]. But, on the other hand, you can’t necessarily argue the Labour party is in a stronger position than they were in the 2016 local elections as well as the 2014 local elections [in both of which Labour ended up ahead].
Compared with forecasts:
1. Labour is obviously underperforming in London compared with the forecasts of enthusiasts - in particular the idea that huge numbers of canvassers will swing a strongly Tory borough has been largely disproved.
2. The Conservatives also fell short of the predictions that they'd do very well outside London. There are patchy successes (Nuneaton and Derby) and failures (Plymouth and Trafford)
Overall, unless the remaining results show any real surprises, it looks consistent with the polls, showing the parties deadlocked.
Some bizarrely good Conservative results in Grimsby.
what's the bizzare? yesterday everyone thought it was Labour gain territory. but it's white, and leave, and the Tories made gains in votes if not seats in the GE
The Conservatives won wards there which they hadn't since, I suspect, the 1970s.
Labour did much better than expected in Wandsworth (they were 35 votes away from winning a seat in Shaftesbury) but the overall London results are disappointing for them.
Although these results are not particularly good for Labour, they are better, relatively speaking, than they were in the general election last year. So you certainly can’t argue that the Labour party has not made any progress as compared with last year’s general election [where the Tories were ahead]. But, on the other hand, you can’t necessarily argue the Labour party is in a stronger position than they were in the 2016 local elections as well as the 2014 local elections [in both of which Labour ended up ahead].
Compared with forecasts:
1. Labour is obviously underperforming in London compared with the forecasts of enthusiasts - in particular the idea that huge numbers of canvassers will swing a strongly Tory borough has been largely disproved.
2. The Conservatives also fell short of the predictions that they'd do very well outside London. There are patchy successes (Nuneaton and Derby) and failures (Plymouth and Trafford)
Overall, unless the remaining results show any real surprises, it looks consistent with the polls, showing the parties deadlocked.
Being deadlocked means Labour will lose the next general election.
All 99 councils that started counting last night have now declared, although there are a few individual wards still to be declared in places like Southgate and Childs Hill where recounts are ongoing.
The needing both wings things sounds lovely but I'm not sure it is all that true, Blair just needed the lefts votes and as time went on not even that so much. The left wing does somewhat need the right wing and that is why there has been some compromise but the right has to accept that the left will be leading for the moment. As much as anything that seems to have been a sticking point.
As to winning just a small percentage change from the last election would probably see Corbyn in office, that might be a long long time, up to 4 years.
A bunch of people resigned from the cabinet, their choice, not a massive loss in some cases. Some new talent given a chance though so could work out well.
I agree there were some duds under Miliband, but Cat Smith, Angela Rayner, Richard Burgon and the others are talent?!!'
We're seriously screwed if that's the level of political talent we have going forward. And the worrying thing is, it is, and not just in Labour.
Some are talent and some are potential maybe some will just end up being found out as warm bodies to fill spaces but after some trouble in the party the last few years we had to prioritise those willing to serve.
All 99 councils that started counting last night have now declared, although there are a few individual wards still to be declared in places like Southgate and Childs Hill where recounts are ongoing.
when are the first results from morning counts expected?
To recall a recent thread discussion, Jews have friends, colleagues, and neighbours.
Indeed, I really underestimated the impact of that local issue. Generally betting against exceptional local results is a good strategy - but this time I was completely wrong.
Although these results are not particularly good for Labour, they are better, relatively speaking, than they were in the general election last year. So you certainly can’t argue that the Labour party has not made any progress as compared with last year’s general election [where the Tories were ahead]. But, on the other hand, you can’t necessarily argue the Labour party is in a stronger position than they were in the 2016 local elections as well as the 2014 local elections [in both of which Labour ended up ahead].
Compared with forecasts:
1. Labour is obviously underperforming in London compared with the forecasts of enthusiasts - in particular the idea that huge numbers of canvassers will swing a strongly Tory borough has been largely disproved.
2. The Conservatives also fell short of the predictions that they'd do very well outside London. There are patchy successes (Nuneaton and Derby) and failures (Plymouth and Trafford)
Overall, unless the remaining results show any real surprises, it looks consistent with the polls, showing the parties deadlocked.
Being deadlocked means Labour will lose the next general election.
It shows in the key marginals, Corbyn is not favoured if he threatens to form a Government.
We could have precisely the same GB vote next time but with 20 seats moving from the Tory to the Labour column, on that basis, giving them a majority again.
Although these results are not particularly good for Labour, they are better, relatively speaking, than they were in the general election last year. So you certainly can’t argue that the Labour party has not made any progress as compared with last year’s general election [where the Tories were ahead]. But, on the other hand, you can’t necessarily argue the Labour party is in a stronger position than they were in the 2016 local elections as well as the 2014 local elections [in both of which Labour ended up ahead].
Compared with forecasts:
1. Labour is obviously underperforming in London compared with the forecasts of enthusiasts - in particular the idea that huge numbers of canvassers will swing a strongly Tory borough has been largely disproved.
2. The Conservatives also fell short of the predictions that they'd do very well outside London. There are patchy successes (Nuneaton and Derby) and failures (Plymouth and Trafford)
Overall, unless the remaining results show any real surprises, it looks consistent with the polls, showing the parties deadlocked.
Being deadlocked means Labour will lose the next general election.
It shows in the key marginals, Corbyn is not favoured if he threatens to form a Government.
We could have precisely the same GB vote next time but with 20 seats moving from the Tory to the Labour column, on that basis, giving them a majority again.
we need to recalibrate what is a marginal. Nuneaton certainly ain't.
This government is divided, incompetent and destructive. Corbyn Labour cannot defeat it. The far left guarantees that the likes of Johnson and Rees Mogg will decide this country’s future. The only way to prevent this is to loosen the far left’s control of the Labour party. That’s why I jumped back into the cesspit. Today I feel totally vindicated.
On Barnet - it wasn’t just Jews that stopped Labour winning, it was their friends and neighbours, too. That is what solidarity looks like. The local party - which is faultless on anti-Semitism - paid for the national leadership’s sins.
That’s the spirit. I’m sure you’ll have him out by lunchtime.
Although these results are not particularly good for Labour, they are better, relatively speaking, than they were in the general election last year. So you certainly can’t argue that the Labour party has not made any progress as compared with last year’s general election [where the Tories were ahead]. But, on the other hand, you can’t necessarily argue the Labour party is in a stronger position than they were in the 2016 local elections as well as the 2014 local elections [in both of which Labour ended up ahead].
Compared with forecasts:
1. Labour is obviously underperforming in London compared with the forecasts of enthusiasts - in particular the idea that huge numbers of canvassers will swing a strongly Tory borough has been largely disproved.
2. The Conservatives also fell short of the predictions that they'd do very well outside London. There are patchy successes (Nuneaton and Derby) and failures (Plymouth and Trafford)
Overall, unless the remaining results show any real surprises, it looks consistent with the polls, showing the parties deadlocked.
Translation - a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn and controlled by the far left cannot defeat a hopelessly divided, totally incompetent and utterly destructive Tory government.
The needing both wings things sounds lovely but I'm not sure it is all that true, Blair just needed the lefts votes and as time went on not even that so much. The left wing does somewhat need the right wing and that is why there has been some compromise but the right has to accept that the left will be leading for the moment. As much as anything that seems to have been a sticking point..
It’s not just “lovely “ it’s absolutely vital that the left and right bury the hatchet. For me the onus is on the leader. Corbyn needs to reach out to Cooper and a couple of others. Cooper as shadow Chancellor would create a more balanced ticket. Corbyn cannot reach all the voters he needs.
Corbyn won’t do that,his tribe is content to have won the party. But that is what it will take for Labour to break out of the deadlock and win the country. There are votes to the right of Labour than to the left.
Although these results are not particularly good for Labour, they are better, relatively speaking, than they were in the general election last year. So you certainly can’t argue that the Labour party has not made any progress as compared with last year’s general election [where the Tories were ahead]. But, on the other hand, you can’t necessarily argue the Labour party is in a stronger position than they were in the 2016 local elections as well as the 2014 local elections [in both of which Labour ended up ahead].
Compared with forecasts:
1. Labour is obviously underperforming in London compared with the forecasts of enthusiasts - in particular the idea that huge numbers of canvassers will swing a strongly Tory borough has been largely disproved.
2. The Conservatives also fell short of the predictions that they'd do very well outside London. There are patchy successes (Nuneaton and Derby) and failures (Plymouth and Trafford)
Overall, unless the remaining results show any real surprises, it looks consistent with the polls, showing the parties deadlocked.
I've read that comment from Prof Curtice several times and I still don't understand it. I can't see how Labour are doing better than at last year's general election except in a small number of places like Plymouth and Trafford. Prof Curtice himself said on the BBC's election show that Labour wouldn't have won Battersea which they gained in 2017.
Although these results are not particularly good for Labour, they are better, relatively speaking, than they were in the general election last year. So you certainly can’t argue that the Labour party has not made any progress as compared with last year’s general election [where the Tories were ahead]. But, on the other hand, you can’t necessarily argue the Labour party is in a stronger position than they were in the 2016 local elections as well as the 2014 local elections [in both of which Labour ended up ahead].
Compared with forecasts:
1. Labour is obviously underperforming in London compared with the forecasts of enthusiasts - in particular the idea that huge numbers of canvassers will swing a strongly Tory borough has been largely disproved.
2. The Conservatives also fell short of the predictions that they'd do very well outside London. There are patchy successes (Nuneaton and Derby) and failures (Plymouth and Trafford)
Overall, unless the remaining results show any real surprises, it looks consistent with the polls, showing the parties deadlocked.
Being deadlocked means Labour will lose the next general election.
As will the Tories.
NOC will be the winner. Which means Corbyn is PM with C&S from the Nats.
The needing both wings things sounds lovely but I'm not sure it is all that true, Blair just needed the lefts votes and as time went on not even that so much. The left wing does somewhat need the right wing and that is why there has been some compromise but the right has to accept that the left will be leading for the moment. As much as anything that seems to have been a sticking point..
It’s not just “lovely “ it’s absolutely vital that the left and right bury the hatchet. For me the onus is on the leader. Corbyn needs to reach out to Cooper and a couple of others. Cooper as shadow Chancellor would create a more balanced ticket. Corbyn cannot reach all the voters he needs.
Corbyn won’t do that,his tribe is content to have won the party. But that is what it will take for Labour to break out of the deadlock and win the country. There are votes to the right of Labour than to the left.
Cooper has already said she won't serve in his Cabinet? I think the Chancellor has to be an ally of the leader. Otherwise I'd agree with reaching out to those in all wings of the party. The issue I think is that many would refuse to work for Corbyn.
All 99 councils that started counting last night have now declared, although there are a few individual wards still to be declared in places like Southgate and Childs Hill where recounts are ongoing.
when are the first results from morning counts expected?
Comments
LD: +1 council
Con: no change
Lab: -1 council
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cz3nmp2eyxgt/england-local-elections-2018
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/992284700805812224
If Corbyn is still there in 2022 then I think even Theresa would beat him, a proper leader will trounce him.
For them to let the Conservatives take it looks like carelessness.
Brandon Lewis looking and sounding as smug as Laura Pidcock as that result comes in.
Over 3 million extra votes, set against a backdrop of the right of party trying to tear it apart to stop the left leading the party and setting policy.
As I understand if we take the leader of the BNP at his word then he would vote for Labour if May was going to start some big conflcit over Syria, as that doesn't seem likely I guess he isn't voting for us. Although if we don't take him at his word then we don't have any evidence he is voting for us.. Works well for propaganda purposes but when you break it down it seems kind of meaningless.
A bunch of people resigned from the cabinet, their choice, not a massive loss in some cases. Some new talent given a chance though so could work out well. Also if they don't like the direction of the party and would rather plan leadership elections for after elections it is probably for the best.
Thanks to Mr. F and Mr. Pulpstar for their tips on Barnet and Sutton. Boo hiss to Labour failing to take Trafford. Proof, were it needed, that Labour are bad for prosperity!
Now which PBer was musing about the possibility of that happening earlier this week ?
I think it was the same PBer who had a 40/1 winner on the Royal Baby name market.
We're seriously screwed if that's the level of political talent we have going forward. And the worrying thing is, it is, and not just in Labour.
The local elections aren't a big betting night for me, but I'm up folding money.
Results are still coming in from across England, so this is essentially a half-time report. But the picture emerging is that Labour has gone backwards slightly from 2014, missed most of its targets (including all of them in London) and gained few seats. Opposition parties are supposed to do well in midterm contests, and these aren’t the results of one that’s about to storm the next general election.
https://twitter.com/mattzarb/status/992159935889903616
https://twitter.com/mattzarb/status/992162111290855426
On Barnet - it wasn’t just Jews that stopped Labour winning, it was their friends and neighbours, too. That is what solidarity looks like. The local party - which is faultless on anti-Semitism - paid for the national leadership’s sins.
Disappointed that the 12-1 on Labour to win Trafford didn’t come in.
Labour are a very, very long way from winning.
https://twitter.com/hackneylad/status/992067953679060993
https://twitter.com/adamlangleben/status/992271466753286144
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/992286638989443072
Paging Owen Jones...
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/992282804598669314
Has Corbyn let me down in Barnet or
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/992293310759821312
No mention of:
Swindon
Trafford
Amber Valley
Westminster
Carlisle
Wandsworth
Dudley or
Walsall
Owen?
Although these results are not particularly good for Labour, they are better, relatively speaking, than they were in the general election last year. So you certainly can’t argue that the Labour party has not made any progress as compared with last year’s general election [where the Tories were ahead]. But, on the other hand, you can’t necessarily argue the Labour party is in a stronger position than they were in the 2016 local elections as well as the 2014 local elections [in both of which Labour ended up ahead].
Compared with forecasts:
1. Labour is obviously underperforming in London compared with the forecasts of enthusiasts - in particular the idea that huge numbers of canvassers will swing a strongly Tory borough has been largely disproved.
2. The Conservatives also fell short of the predictions that they'd do very well outside London. There are patchy successes (Nuneaton and Derby) and failures (Plymouth and Trafford)
Overall, unless the remaining results show any real surprises, it looks consistent with the polls, showing the parties deadlocked.
The needing both wings things sounds lovely but I'm not sure it is all that true, Blair just needed the lefts votes and as time went on not even that so much. The left wing does somewhat need the right wing and that is why there has been some compromise but the right has to accept that the left will be leading for the moment. As much as anything that seems to have been a sticking point.
As to winning just a small percentage change from the last election would probably see Corbyn in office, that might be a long long time, up to 4 years. Some are talent and some are potential maybe some will just end up being found out as warm bodies to fill spaces but after some trouble in the party the last few years we had to prioritise those willing to serve.
Has there been a projected national share of the vote yet?
We could have precisely the same GB vote next time but with 20 seats moving from the Tory to the Labour column, on that basis, giving them a majority again.
2010 26%
2006 25%
2002 27%
1998 25%
1994 25%
https://www.nelincs.gov.uk/councillors-and-democracy/elections-and-electoral-registration/election-results/local-elections-3rd-may-2018/
did you survive the great cull ?
Alistair Meeks often posts as Lord Adonis.
You can tell - the avatar is the same bloke.
Thoughts with Owen in this difficult time.
Corbyn won’t do that,his tribe is content to have won the party. But that is what it will take for Labour to break out of the deadlock and win the country. There are votes to the right of Labour than to the left.
NOC will be the winner. Which means Corbyn is PM with C&S from the Nats.
Must be a shed ton of evil bankers around.
I think the Chancellor has to be an ally of the leader. Otherwise I'd agree with reaching out to those in all wings of the party. The issue I think is that many would refuse to work for Corbyn.