The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
2 factors against that.
First there were 123 UKIP seats up for grabs. That has hidden a considerable part of the Tory losses. Second, Labour in those elections was coming from considerable highs. The Tories here did pretty poorly in 2014 and they have lost further ground.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
Yeah, but their opponent is Jeremy Corbyn though.
Yes if you struggle to beat Jeremy Corbyn , you really do need a re -think.
Celebrating holding on to Wandsworth just , reminds me of 1990.
Stunning result for the Lib Dems in Kingston. Zac is toast next time out.
Do we have details ? My vote obviously helped !
Pleasantly surprised to see all 3 Lib Dem’s have been elected in Chessington
Looking at the historical results on the RBK website, there's only been two instances of non-LDs (both Tories) being elected in Chessington (both in Chessington North and Hook Rise ward) since 2002.
Which is surprising as it’s a very WWC area. I guess London really is different.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
It also gets the WHOLE (Not just thirds) of London & Birmingham out the way for another 4 years.
I thought all the metropolitan boroughs (the districts of the former metropolitan counties) elected by thirds, unless there's been a re-warding, and didn't have the option of election by whole.
I know Birmingham is going to all up elections from now on. There seems to be a trend away from elections by thirds, although I'm not sure why. Perhaps a cost saving exercise?
Interesting. Elections by thirds always seemed a bit odd to me.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
We're eight years into government, we've implemented austerity policies, we've cut local government grants quite significantly and in London we're implementing a locally very unpopular policy.
Considering all that, we've held on to 98% of our councillors. In the equivalent election in 2006 (9 years into the last Labour government) Labour lost 17% of all their seats and Dave led us to over 300 gains that night vs probably about 80 for Corbyn tonight.
Overall, we've got a C grade. It's a pass, but there is huge room for improvement.
Agreed, except given the number of swing areas you've gained I'd call it a solid B.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
Yeah, but their opponent is Jeremy Corbyn though.
Yes if you struggle to beat Jeremy Corbyn , you really do need a re -think.
Celebrating holding on to Wandsworth just , reminds me of 1990.
It's not irrelevant, and it means future defeat is clearly not inevitable, but they cannot be certain of beating Labour either. Clearly they are going to lose to Labour again at some point, if it is next time that is 12 years of government, which is a decent run for a party. If they manage to win that stretches out to 17 years, which is incredibly well. So either way in terms of elections they are going to have done ok, particularly if they avoid a landslide at the end.
Is heidi Alexander stepping down tonight? overall results very much in line with the demographic shifts we've seen over recent years. Labour results in Redditch swindon Newcastle under lyme etc not good for a party aspiring to government.
Tories only kept Swindon because of Voter ID gerrymandering scandal.
David Lammy is correct .Voter ID is Jim Crow writ large.
LOL!
Is he still going on about voter ID? Pathetic. There is no reasoning with someone like volcanopete.
It's completely mad, as well being incredibly patronising to black voters, who apparently must find it really hard to turn up at the polling booth with their polling cards.
Is heidi Alexander stepping down tonight? overall results very much in line with the demographic shifts we've seen over recent years. Labour results in Redditch swindon Newcastle under lyme etc not good for a party aspiring to government.
Tories only kept Swindon because of Voter ID gerrymandering scandal.
Says who?
And voter ID had nothing to do with electoral boundaries.
Thanks for that link, it looks like there was slow decrease in the proportion of Con councilors for the first 8 years of Thatchers time as PM, then a large drop!! hoping that's not predictive...
Is heidi Alexander stepping down tonight? overall results very much in line with the demographic shifts we've seen over recent years. Labour results in Redditch swindon Newcastle under lyme etc not good for a party aspiring to government.
Tories only kept Swindon because of Voter ID gerrymandering scandal.
Funny that the Labour Group Leader is not quoted as blaming that in the BBC report - if that was the reason I don't know why he wouldn't mention it
So frankly while the policy trial does not seen overly necessary to me, the hysteria about the impact does not yet seem to be borne out either (which is really undermining the case against it), if the one most affected is not (seemingly) complaining that was the reason they failed to win. Certainly he was very opposed to the trial, but it would be an easy thing to blame for the failure to take the council, and apparently he resisted. But you know better than him?
Hoped it would fly under the radar, I imagine. I would not be surprised to see them lose control again, as the decision to accept her back is reversed.
It's all about Conservative inclusiveness and a tent big enough to accommodate those whose words are straight from the BNP bunker. Not too sure it's a winner though ....
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
Yeah, but their opponent is Jeremy Corbyn though.
Yes if you struggle to beat Jeremy Corbyn , you really do need a re -think.
Celebrating holding on to Wandsworth just , reminds me of 1990.
It's not irrelevant, and it means future defeat is clearly not inevitable, but they cannot be certain of beating Labour either. Clearly they are going to lose to Labour again at some point, if it is next time that is 12 years of government, which is a decent run for a party. If they manage to win that stretches out to 17 years, which is incredibly well. So either way in terms of elections they are going to have done ok, particularly if they avoid a landslide at the end.
Yes but 1990 , they changed got rid of the leader ,and the main policy dispute the community charge. Then won the next GE.
They seem to be devoid at the moment of any such change , just relying on been anti Corbyn might not be enough , as the last GE and these results show.
The Lib Dems have not yet managed to find a response to the reality that the coalition was not popular.
It was popular with Conservatives. It wasn't popular with Lib Dem voters.
The absolute conviction of Lib Dem MPs (and obvioulsy lots of former MPs) that the Coalition was popular with its voters and that its voters were demanding, nay champing at the bit for, a coalition with the Tories is the most insane collective delusion who's power over them I cannot explain.
If the Lib Dems aren't going to become junior partners in a coalition then what is the point of them?
Weilding power via confidence and supply on a bill by bill basis?
Did we ever get a projected national share of the vote?
35/35/16
Labour and the Tories tied in terms of the national vote mirrors the polls but as these are Local Elections the LDs get more votes at their expense
I don't dispute that but what's the logic behind it? Could we be seeing the re-emrgence of the LDs as a national force? God knows we need an alternative to May and Corbyn!
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
Yeah, but their opponent is Jeremy Corbyn though.
Yes if you struggle to beat Jeremy Corbyn , you really do need a re -think.
Celebrating holding on to Wandsworth just , reminds me of 1990.
It's not irrelevant, and it means future defeat is clearly not inevitable, but they cannot be certain of beating Labour either. Clearly they are going to lose to Labour again at some point, if it is next time that is 12 years of government, which is a decent run for a party. If they manage to win that stretches out to 17 years, which is incredibly well. So either way in terms of elections they are going to have done ok, particularly if they avoid a landslide at the end.
Yes but 1990 , they changed got rid of the leader ,and the main policy dispute the community charge. Then won the next GE.
They seem to be devoid at the moment of any such change , just relying on been anti Corbyn might not be enough , as the last GE and these results show.
Agreed
Good night all (I've had several hours worth of dozing, but not enough real sleep since last night)
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
Yeah, but their opponent is Jeremy Corbyn though.
Yes if you struggle to beat Jeremy Corbyn , you really do need a re -think.
Celebrating holding on to Wandsworth just , reminds me of 1990.
It's not irrelevant, and it means future defeat is clearly not inevitable, but they cannot be certain of beating Labour either. Clearly they are going to lose to Labour again at some point, if it is next time that is 12 years of government, which is a decent run for a party. If they manage to win that stretches out to 17 years, which is incredibly well. So either way in terms of elections they are going to have done ok, particularly if they avoid a landslide at the end.
Yes but 1990 , they changed got rid of the leader ,and the main policy dispute the community charge. Then won the next GE.
They seem to be devoid at the moment of any such change , just relying on been anti Corbyn might not be enough , as the last GE and these results show.
Thatcher was miles behind Kinnock in the polls in late 1990 and Heseltine and Major polled much better, May is tied with Corbyn in the polls and no alternative polls much better
Is heidi Alexander stepping down tonight? overall results very much in line with the demographic shifts we've seen over recent years. Labour results in Redditch swindon Newcastle under lyme etc not good for a party aspiring to government.
Tories only kept Swindon because of Voter ID gerrymandering scandal.
Says who?
And voter ID had nothing to do with electoral boundaries.
A lot of people really need to learn what gerrymandering actually means......
The Lib Dems have not yet managed to find a response to the reality that the coalition was not popular.
It was popular with Conservatives. It wasn't popular with Lib Dem voters.
The absolute conviction of Lib Dem MPs (and obvioulsy lots of former MPs) that the Coalition was popular with its voters and that its voters were demanding, nay champing at the bit for, a coalition with the Tories is the most insane collective delusion who's power over them I cannot explain.
But that was because the LibDems spent the entire five years whingeing about how awful it was being in coalition with these nasty Tories. rather than celebrating and promoting the fact that after half a century they'd finally got the kind of coalition politics they'd been arguing for. It's hardly surprising therefore that voters decided to relieve them of the necessity of repeating the experience next time round.
Yes, I'm sure all the centre left voter who voted LD in 2010 were just thrilled at all the Tory stuff that happened under the LD noses. And those peeps looking for voting reform were just thrilled by how trivially out manouvered Clegg was by Cameron.
Did we ever get a projected national share of the vote?
35/35/16
Labour and the Tories tied in terms of the national vote mirrors the polls but as these are Local Elections the LDs get more votes at their expense
I don't dispute that but what's the logic behind it? Could we be seeing the re-emrgence of the LDs as a national force? God knows we need an alternative to May and Corbyn!
It is just a number of Tory and Labour general election voters vote LD to fix potholes at local elections
Con - do well where aspiration or project fear works, where they don't they look very old and tired. Need to write AFFORDABLE HOUSING on every wall of CCHQ.
Lab - do well where there voting blocks are concentrated but their problem is that these voting blocks tend to be very concentrated and they have little to offer to others.
LibDems - have become the equivalent of the German Free Dems but in a country without PR. Need to realise there's a lot more to the country than affluent home-owning graduates.
Weird. LD's are weird, and anything to do with them is weird. Almost unbettably(!!) so, and that's weird too because - well, you know.
I'm curious as to whether any LD types who bet actually do well on the LDs? (I guess that's mainly a question for OGH, but there may be others. FWIW I do a quite a bit better on Labour type issues that Tory ones, and I vote Tory.)
The Lib Dems have not yet managed to find a response to the reality that the coalition was not popular.
It was popular with Conservatives. It wasn't popular with Lib Dem voters.
The absolute conviction of Lib Dem MPs (and obvioulsy lots of former MPs) that the Coalition was popular with its voters and that its voters were demanding, nay champing at the bit for, a coalition with the Tories is the most insane collective delusion who's power over them I cannot explain.
If the Lib Dems aren't going to become junior partners in a coalition then what is the point of them?
Weilding power via confidence and supply on a bill by bill basis?
Which is exactly what they should have done in 2010
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
2 factors against that.
First there were 123 UKIP seats up for grabs. That has hidden a considerable part of the Tory losses. Second, Labour in those elections was coming from considerable highs. The Tories here did pretty poorly in 2014 and they have lost further ground.
In 2006 Labour were most certainly NOT 'coming from considerable highs'.
The seats being previously contested in either 2004 (when the Conservatives led Labour 37% to 26%) or in 2002 (when the Conservatives led Labour 34% to 33%).
Yet in 2006 Labour still lost over 300 councillors.
The Lib Dem successes cannot be ignored. Okay, the councillor numbers obviously helped by big wins in Kingston and Richmond. But didn't someone on PB was saying the LDs could lose Sutton. They didn't , did they ?
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
2 factors against that.
First there were 123 UKIP seats up for grabs. That has hidden a considerable part of the Tory losses. Second, Labour in those elections was coming from considerable highs. The Tories here did pretty poorly in 2014 and they have lost further ground.
In 2006 Labour were most certainly NOT 'coming from considerable highs'.
The seats being previously contested in either 2004 (when the Conservatives led Labour 37% to 26%) or in 2002 (when the Conservatives led Labour 34% to 33%).
Yet in 2006 Labour still lost over 300 councillors.
I think you will find the number of councillors up for election is now much fewer for whatever reason.
Did we ever get a projected national share of the vote?
35/35/16
Labour and the Tories tied in terms of the national vote mirrors the polls but as these are Local Elections the LDs get more votes at their expense
I don't dispute that but what's the logic behind it? Could we be seeing the re-emrgence of the LDs as a national force? God knows we need an alternative to May and Corbyn!
It is just a number of Tory and Labour general election voters vote LD to fix potholes at local elections
Fair enough. Put the other way, a number of natural LD voters switch to voting for the Tories or Labour at a GE to avoid wasting their vote - I've done it myself (well, not switching to the Tories, obviously!).
The Lib Dem successes cannot be ignored. Okay, the councillor numbers obviously helped by big wins in Kingston and Richmond. But didn't someone on PB was saying the LDs could lose Sutton. They didn't , did they ?
The Lib Dems have not yet managed to find a response to the reality that the coalition was not popular.
It was popular with Conservatives. It wasn't popular with Lib Dem voters.
The absolute conviction of Lib Dem MPs (and obvioulsy lots of former MPs) that the Coalition was popular with its voters and that its voters were demanding, nay champing at the bit for, a coalition with the Tories is the most insane collective delusion who's power over them I cannot explain.
But that was because the LibDems spent the entire five years whingeing about how awful it was being in coalition with these nasty Tories. rather than celebrating and promoting the fact that after half a century they'd finally got the kind of coalition politics they'd been arguing for. It's hardly surprising therefore that voters decided to relieve them of the necessity of repeating the experience next time round.
Yes, I'm sure all the centre left voter who voted LD in 2010 were just thrilled at all the Tory stuff that happened under the LD noses. And those peeps looking for voting reform were just thrilled by how trivially out manouvered Clegg was by Cameron.
It was the New Politics - parties working together, the end of the old adversarial stuff, with give and take on both sides. That is EXACTLY what the LibDems claimed to be offering before the election. You seem to think they should have had a veto on every policy and principle of the senior coalition partners, but coalitions don't work like that.
As I said, if they'd actually celebrated what they'd achieved, rather than spending 5 years bitching about it, they'd have done much better. As it is, they managed the worst of all worlds, alienating both those who actually wanted or at least were broadly happy with a centrist coalition-style party, and the loons who bizarrely thought that the LibDems would never ally with moderate Conservatives, despite them making it 100% clear that they would if the numbers worked out that way.
Anyway, they've killed off the New Politics for a hell of a long time now.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
2 factors against that.
First there were 123 UKIP seats up for grabs. That has hidden a considerable part of the Tory losses. Second, Labour in those elections was coming from considerable highs. The Tories here did pretty poorly in 2014 and they have lost further ground.
In 2006 Labour were most certainly NOT 'coming from considerable highs'.
The seats being previously contested in either 2004 (when the Conservatives led Labour 37% to 26%) or in 2002 (when the Conservatives led Labour 34% to 33%).
Yet in 2006 Labour still lost over 300 councillors.
I think you will find the number of councillors up for election is now much fewer for whatever reason.
In 2006 there were 4178 Con, Lab and LibDem councillors.
The Tories have so got away with this. Lib Dems +69, Labour +60, Tories -23. On what planet are these good results?
For a government, they're pretty decent results after 8 years. Think how many seats Labour were losing in each round of local elections after 8 years in office.
2 factors against that.
First there were 123 UKIP seats up for grabs. That has hidden a considerable part of the Tory losses. Second, Labour in those elections was coming from considerable highs. The Tories here did pretty poorly in 2014 and they have lost further ground.
In 2006 Labour were most certainly NOT 'coming from considerable highs'.
The seats being previously contested in either 2004 (when the Conservatives led Labour 37% to 26%) or in 2002 (when the Conservatives led Labour 34% to 33%).
Yet in 2006 Labour still lost over 300 councillors.
I think you will find the number of councillors up for election is now much fewer for whatever reason.
In 2006 there were 4178 Con, Lab and LibDem councillors.
The Lib Dem successes cannot be ignored. Okay, the councillor numbers obviously helped by big wins in Kingston and Richmond. But didn't someone on PB was saying the LDs could lose Sutton. They didn't , did they ?
I think the LDs have been detoxified.
Yes, I think GE2017 may prove to be an aberration rather than a return to two party politics. In many ways the Corbyn surge was just a reaction against the prospect of an overwhelming Tory majority which the country did not feel it wanted to award. (It's always dangerous to personify an entire electorate but can sometimes be useful to express changes in mood.)
Interesting that the Greens have done better than expected , having gained 8 seats to win a total of 39.Very different here in Norwich where for the second consecutive year they lost all 5 seats being defended - and risk disappearing from the City Council next year.
The Lib Dem successes cannot be ignored. Okay, the councillor numbers obviously helped by big wins in Kingston and Richmond. But didn't someone on PB was saying the LDs could lose Sutton. They didn't , did they ?
I think the LDs have been detoxified.
BBC saying LibDems up 75, Lab up 55, Tories down 26.
The Lib Dem successes cannot be ignored. Okay, the councillor numbers obviously helped by big wins in Kingston and Richmond. But didn't someone on PB was saying the LDs could lose Sutton. They didn't , did they ?
I think the LDs have been detoxified.
In the posh parts of SW London.
Elsewhere its a different story.
Four years ago the LibDems lost over 300 councillors, this year they will gain about a quarter of those back.
Interesting that the Greens have done better than expected , having gained 8 seats to win a total of 39.Very different here in Norwich where for the second consecutive year they lost all 5 seats being defended - and risk disappearing from the City Council next year.
Yes, if anything you might have expected them to go backwards, given the national squeeze on small parties in GE2017. Maybe that squeeze is dissipating.
The Lib Dem successes cannot be ignored. Okay, the councillor numbers obviously helped by big wins in Kingston and Richmond. But didn't someone on PB was saying the LDs could lose Sutton. They didn't , did they ?
I think the LDs have been detoxified.
BBC saying LibDems up 75, Lab up 55, Tories down 26.
Compare with forecasts, which were:
Rallings & Thrasher:
Con -75 Lab +200 LD +12
and Fisher's central forecast (albeit with a very big error bar):
I think Harrow is currently Labour 34, Con 26, with these three still to declare. Close but no cigar for the Conservatives.
The Conservatives have held on much better in East Harrow than in most parts of Middlesex.
Middle class Jews and Hindus do not seem impressed with Corbyn Labour.
That's a poor characterisation of Harrow. It really is quite 'upper working class' and cosmopolitan. So more. I'd conclude, the 'newly-half-wealthy' don't seem impressed with Corbyn Labour.
I think Harrow is currently Labour 34, Con 26, with these three still to declare. Close but no cigar for the Conservatives.
The Conservatives have held on much better in East Harrow than in most parts of Middlesex.
Middle class Jews and Hindus do not seem impressed with Corbyn Labour.
For Indians, he poses a threat to our way of life. Too many of us own businesses or work in some kind of financial role. Everything Corbyn stands for goes against that. The Tory property reforms have been extremely unpopular within the Indian community (and I expect within the Jewish community also, given the similarities) but with Corbyn in charge of Labour there is nowhere else to go.
Interesting that the Greens have done better than expected , having gained 8 seats to win a total of 39.Very different here in Norwich where for the second consecutive year they lost all 5 seats being defended - and risk disappearing from the City Council next year.
Yes, if anything you might have expected them to go backwards, given the national squeeze on small parties in GE2017. Maybe that squeeze is dissipating.
At least they bloody stood in my seat. Nobody else could be bothered apart from a Conservative candidate from another part of the district who never even campaigned and the Labour member who is so useless he actually gets lost wandering around the ward.
Their willingness to at least make the effort got them my vote, even though Mr Useless was duly returned by almost every other vote.
Interesting that the Greens have done better than expected , having gained 8 seats to win a total of 39.Very different here in Norwich where for the second consecutive year they lost all 5 seats being defended - and risk disappearing from the City Council next year.
Yes, if anything you might have expected them to go backwards, given the national squeeze on small parties in GE2017. Maybe that squeeze is dissipating.
The Greens may also - like the LibDems - benefit from the collapse in the UKIP vote. Many people had been voting UKIP for reasons unrelated to Brexit in that for several years they became the NOTA option - a position lost by the LibDems as a consequence of entering the Coalition. In some areas the LibDems appear to have recovered quite a bit of that support with Greens getting a similar boost.
Off topic, I bought a pretty massive position in IAG after the Brexit kerfuffle a couple of years ago. I actually forgot about it until now because the results came out this morning and they are primed to buy Norwegian. I'm sitting on a pretty huge gain, does anyone know the implications of selling the stake whilst I'm still resident in Switzerland? I don't mind paying any UK CGT due, but I don't know if I'd be liable.
It was the New Politics - parties working together, the end of the old adversarial stuff, with give and take on both sides. That is EXACTLY what the LibDems claimed to be offering before the election. You seem to think they should have had a veto on every policy and principle of the senior coalition partners, but coalitions don't work like that.
As I said, if they'd actually celebrated what they'd achieved, rather than spending 5 years bitching about it, they'd have done much better. As it is, they managed the worst of all worlds, alienating both those who actually wanted or at least were broadly happy with a centrist coalition-style party, and the loons who bizarrely thought that the LibDems would never ally with moderate Conservatives, despite them making it 100% clear that they would if the numbers worked out that way.
Anyway, they've killed off the New Politics for a hell of a long time now.
The Lib Dems in Scotland went into coalition with Labour in 1999 at Holyrood with 17 seats. In 2003 they got 17 seats and an increased share of the vote and stayed in coalition. In 2007 they managed to increase their share of the vote again but Labour losses to the SNP means they lost power as Weetminster Lib Dems blocked the Scottish LDs from forming a coalition with the SNP.
In 2011 after less than a year of Coalition government they won 5 seats at Holyrood and lost over half their vote.
Te evidence is there that the Lib Dems could make coalition government work for them and please their voters but they entered into an insane coalition agreement with Cameron's Conservatives.
At Holyrood they got everything they asked for, at Westminster they got nothing but the blame.
Harrow- Tories gain 2 Labour gain 1 libdems and Ind wiped out.
Lab hold. Surprisingly good results for Tories in outer London.
30 years ago, Harrow was a natural Tory borough. Now it is a natural Labour borough.
You can't go around accusing the place I was born of being a natural Labour borough without consequences you know! I hope you've kept your duelling pistols in good order!
Off topic, I bought a pretty massive position in IAG after the Brexit kerfuffle a couple of years ago. I actually forgot about it until now because the results came out this morning and they are primed to buy Norwegian. I'm sitting on a pretty huge gain, does anyone know the implications of selling the stake whilst I'm still resident in Switzerland? I don't mind paying any UK CGT due, but I don't know if I'd be liable.
Off topic, I bought a pretty massive position in IAG after the Brexit kerfuffle a couple of years ago. I actually forgot about it until now because the results came out this morning and they are primed to buy Norwegian. I'm sitting on a pretty huge gain, does anyone know the implications of selling the stake whilst I'm still resident in Switzerland? I don't mind paying any UK CGT due, but I don't know if I'd be liable.
I think you are liable (subject to the £11.7K allowance) unless you are non-resident and away for 5 years:
Off topic, I bought a pretty massive position in IAG after the Brexit kerfuffle a couple of years ago. I actually forgot about it until now because the results came out this morning and they are primed to buy Norwegian. I'm sitting on a pretty huge gain, does anyone know the implications of selling the stake whilst I'm still resident in Switzerland? I don't mind paying any UK CGT due, but I don't know if I'd be liable.
Off topic, I bought a pretty massive position in IAG after the Brexit kerfuffle a couple of years ago. I actually forgot about it until now because the results came out this morning and they are primed to buy Norwegian. I'm sitting on a pretty huge gain, does anyone know the implications of selling the stake whilst I'm still resident in Switzerland? I don't mind paying any UK CGT due, but I don't know if I'd be liable.
I think you are liable (subject to the £11.7K allowance) unless you are non-resident and away for 5 years:
Ok thanks, in that case I'll do it half and half, I wish I'd remembered before April.
What's extra irritating is that I had almost all of the original investment amount available in ISA funds but again, in my haste to invest after Brexit I didn't do anything properly.
The Lib Dem successes cannot be ignored. Okay, the councillor numbers obviously helped by big wins in Kingston and Richmond. But didn't someone on PB was saying the LDs could lose Sutton. They didn't , did they ?
I think the LDs have been detoxified.
That was me: and they tried to lose Sutton. It's a lot less safe council than Richmond or Kingston now.
Comments
First there were 123 UKIP seats up for grabs. That has hidden a considerable part of the Tory losses.
Second, Labour in those elections was coming from considerable highs. The Tories here did pretty poorly in 2014 and they have lost further ground.
Celebrating holding on to Wandsworth just , reminds me of 1990.
That's a lot better for Lib's?
LD 39 (+21), Con 9 (-18), Lab 0 (-2), Oth 0 (-1)
https://twitter.com/katelevann/status/992408082545283072
And voter ID had nothing to do with electoral boundaries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-44000099
So frankly while the policy trial does not seen overly necessary to me, the hysteria about the impact does not yet seem to be borne out either (which is really undermining the case against it), if the one most affected is not (seemingly) complaining that was the reason they failed to win. Certainly he was very opposed to the trial, but it would be an easy thing to blame for the failure to take the council, and apparently he resisted. But you know better than him?
Voter ID is a solution desperately looking for a problem.
If it has been a joke about Jews from a Labour Party Councillor we would be up in arms. I'm pretty sickened by Pendle Conservatives.
https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/992444725348261889
Then won the next GE.
They seem to be devoid at the moment of any such change , just relying on been anti Corbyn might not be enough , as the last GE and these results show.
Good night all (I've had several hours worth of dozing, but not enough real sleep since last night)
Con - do well where aspiration or project fear works, where they don't they look very old and tired. Need to write AFFORDABLE HOUSING on every wall of CCHQ.
Lab - do well where there voting blocks are concentrated but their problem is that these voting blocks tend to be very concentrated and they have little to offer to others.
LibDems - have become the equivalent of the German Free Dems but in a country without PR. Need to realise there's a lot more to the country than affluent home-owning graduates.
She said she meant to delete it from her timeline, and shared by mistake instead.
She served a suspension and underwent diversity training.
LibDem 29 .. Con 19 .. Lab 3 .. Edit for full result
https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/voting-and-elections/elections/election-results/south-lakeland-district-council-election-results/south-lakeland-district-council-election-results-2018/
I'm curious as to whether any LD types who bet actually do well on the LDs? (I guess that's mainly a question for OGH, but there may be others. FWIW I do a quite a bit better on Labour type issues that Tory ones, and I vote Tory.)
The seats being previously contested in either 2004 (when the Conservatives led Labour 37% to 26%) or in 2002 (when the Conservatives led Labour 34% to 33%).
Yet in 2006 Labour still lost over 300 councillors.
I think the LDs have been detoxified.
Lab hold. Surprisingly good results for Tories in outer London.
Of course even on that half arsed logic, if it was a *mistake* why did she then have to go on diversity training?
Middle class Jews and Hindus do not seem impressed with Corbyn Labour.
As I said, if they'd actually celebrated what they'd achieved, rather than spending 5 years bitching about it, they'd have done much better. As it is, they managed the worst of all worlds, alienating both those who actually wanted or at least were broadly happy with a centrist coalition-style party, and the loons who bizarrely thought that the LibDems would never ally with moderate Conservatives, despite them making it 100% clear that they would if the numbers worked out that way.
Anyway, they've killed off the New Politics for a hell of a long time now.
Anyways I meant against expectations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2006
In 2018 there are so far 4156 Con, Lab and LibDem councillors:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cz3nmp2eyxgt/england-local-elections-2018
Elsewhere its a different story.
Four years ago the LibDems lost over 300 councillors, this year they will gain about a quarter of those back.
https://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=11&V=0&RPID=14777219
Rallings & Thrasher:
Con -75
Lab +200
LD +12
and Fisher's central forecast (albeit with a very big error bar):
Con +8
Lab +131
LD -83
Their willingness to at least make the effort got them my vote, even though Mr Useless was duly returned by almost every other vote.
I think the parts in Redbridge were won by the Conservatives.
https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/992455974911954944
✔
@TowerHamletsNow
Busy, busy, busy at the local ward electoral count. As soon as we hear anything, we will let you know.... Results so far can be found http://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=43&RPID=12702974 …
6:03 PM - May 4, 2018 "
https://twitter.com/TowerHamletsNow/status/992449584982052864
In 2011 after less than a year of Coalition government they won 5 seats at Holyrood and lost over half their vote.
Te evidence is there that the Lib Dems could make coalition government work for them and please their voters but they entered into an insane coalition agreement with Cameron's Conservatives.
At Holyrood they got everything they asked for, at Westminster they got nothing but the blame.
Westminster LDs absolutely fucked it.
https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax/what-you-pay-it-on
https://www.gov.uk/tax-return-uk
What's extra irritating is that I had almost all of the original investment amount available in ISA funds but again, in my haste to invest after Brexit I didn't do anything properly.