Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
What were the shares of the votes in London?
Also, what were the National gains/losses if seats formerly held by UKIP are excluded?
Labour led by 15% across London, but I don't have the full figures.
I guess multi-candidate wards complicate the equation, though you could just take the votes for the best performing candidate for each party
I'll try and crunch the numbers.
Some individual borough scores are Harrow 47% Lab to 45% Con, Barnet 44% Con to 39% Lab, Enfield 55% Lab to 34% Con, Croydon 44% Lab to 40% Con, Westminster 43% Con to 41% Lab, Richmond 47% Lib Dem to 38% Con.
Richmond Park was probably very close on those results - especially if the reports of hundreds of EU votes per ward are correct.
Without looking at the individual wards it seems that the Conservatives have totally collapsed in both Enfield and Ilford but are holding on better in the Chingford and Woodford area.
The next census will show some significant demographic changes I expect.
I was looking at the individual results in Enfield and was surprised to see that the Tory vote was holding up quite well in many of the wards, although Labour was up in most of them so there was a swing in that direction. In Ilford there was a decline in Conservative votes.
In Merton there was an unexpected swing to the Tories in two or three wards in the Wimbledon Park area.
Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
Yes. Tories got smashed. Barnet being your only achievement. UKIP did not even have too many to lose. London was always bigot free.
The Tories did not get "smashed" and London is not the country.
It was in reply to your post on London figures. You are correct London is not the country. I was talking about London as you were.
Labour targetted about 5 Tory councils in London and didn't win any of them. Maybe they should have concentrated on just one, like Wandsworth for instance.
The media said they targeted and the party did not deny it since the newbies got carried away. Westminster, Wandsworth, Kensington was always out of reach. Wandsworth is one place where I know of Labour supporters voting Tory because of the council tax. They vote differently in the GE. In fact, they did very well in Wandsworth. Barnet was the loss.
I see the Labour will win Hillingdon and then beat Boris in Uxbridge has become untalk.
Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
What were the shares of the votes in London?
Also, what were the National gains/losses if seats formerly held by UKIP are excluded?
Labour led by 15% across London, but I don't have the full figures.
I guess multi-candidate wards complicate the equation, though you could just take the votes for the best performing candidate for each party
I'll try and crunch the numbers.
Some individual borough scores are Harrow 47% Lab to 45% Con, Barnet 44% Con to 39% Lab, Enfield 55% Lab to 34% Con, Croydon 44% Lab to 40% Con, Westminster 43% Con to 41% Lab, Richmond 47% Lib Dem to 38% Con.
Richmond Park was probably very close on those results - especially if the reports of hundreds of EU votes per ward are correct.
Without looking at the individual wards it seems that the Conservatives have totally collapsed in both Enfield and Ilford but are holding on better in the Chingford and Woodford area.
The next census will show some significant demographic changes I expect.
IDS will be retiring next time unless he wants to lose.
The Tories only lost 2 seats in Waltham Forest where most of his Chingford and Woodford Green seat is, so that is encouraging for IDS in some respects.
The Tories did badly in Redbridge, losing 14 seats but that borough mainly incorporates Ilford North and Ilford South which the Tories would now need a landslide majority of over 100 seats to regain from Labour
Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
Yes. Tories got smashed. Barnet being your only achievement. UKIP did not even have too many to lose. London was always bigot free.
The Tories did not get "smashed" and London is not the country.
It was in reply to your post on London figures. You are correct London is not the country. I was talking about London as you were.
Labour targetted about 5 Tory councils in London and didn't win any of them. Maybe they should have concentrated on just one, like Wandsworth for instance.
The media said they targeted and the party did not deny it since the newbies got carried away. Westminster, Wandsworth, Kensington was always out of reach. Wandsworth is one place where I know of Labour supporters voting Tory because of the council tax. They vote differently in the GE. In fact, they did very well in Wandsworth. Barnet was the loss.
I see the Labour will win Hillingdon and then beat Boris in Uxbridge has become untalk.
That talk was inspired by IOS late of this parish.
Given his support for gay rights one wonders how he manages to reconcile that with his praise for Russia, Iran, Syria and the Palestinian leadership, all of whom hate gays and take active steps to make their lives miserable.
I think you'll struggle to find many examples of his praising the leadership of these countries/groups - he was once polite to Hamas at a meeting and has ageeed it was unwise, and that's about it. Can you find a quote where he's said he positively likes Assad or Putin? What he's consistently done is oppose armed intervention against them, which is a mix of near-pacifism and Nato-scepticism.
Generally speaking, all the conflicts they're involved in have some nasty characters on both sides (nobody looking at the Ukraine issue in detail can identify either side as consistently decent); the Western leadership tends to attack one side, prompting leftists to redress the balance.
He hasn't just opposed armed intervention. He has actively tried to excuse them for their crimes. It's amazing hiw Corbyn's NATO scepticism doesn't apply to Russia's much more aggressive military interventions. He has also very willingly gone on Russia and Iran's propaganda TV outlets to help support their anti-Western narratives. As for Hamas and Hezbollah, he wasn't just polite to them, he has praised their struggles and invited them to parliament as friends. And don't give me that bullcrap about wanting dialogue. He has never extended the same courtesy to Israeli groups.
I think you know this full well and are actively shilling for your leader. Given you did the same thing for Blair's war in Iraq, you are clearly just a shill with no principles that will argue for the Labour leadership no matter how disgraceful.
Absolutely not. Labour had the largest net increase in number of councillors. A net increase of 77 isn't that bad considering very good 2014 results.
What is interesting is that the "old" anti-Tory coalition is beginning to emerge. Liberals taking on the Tories is some parts and Labour in other parts.
We must not forget Labour did not win Wandsworth or Westminster even in 1994. Barnet would have been won but for recent events.
Yes, I think that is true. There are few Lab/LD marginals, and real potential for some tacit anti-Tory alliances.
It it also seems from the NEV* share that there is potential for more people to vote LD where there are winnable seats, the key is to identify and target these. It will be a long slow road back.
*Though 14% of a 30% turnout may well be exactly the same as 7% of a 60% turnout. GOTV muddies the waters if LD voters are keener to vote.
Yup. Lots of Europeans voted LD in SW London. The German school , for example, is in Richmond. The point about a anti-Tory unofficial alliance is valid. Where is another Charlie Kennedy ?
I am not suggesting it was a brilliant night for Labour. I agree with David's analysis. But the landscape is changing in a way that is not necessarily to the Tory's advantage.
A majority can only really come about from a significant upsurge in protest voting against the other side, since both of the larger parties, despite being jointly at record levels of support, have lost the ability to build a winning coalition around any positive agenda. Brexit is alientating former Tories amongst the educated and within business; the interests of Labour's internal constituencies have diverged and cannot be reconciled.
Further, whilst Labour's position appears worse as it *ought* to be doing better, upsurges in protest voting are hugely more likely to be against a sitting government, when it does something (or things go) wrong, rather than oppositions. Whereas most people repelled by Corbyn are already voting Tory.
That is fair. Labour is getting the votes it is with Corbyn as leader. Given everything that has (deservedly) been thrown at him and the party leadership, it's hard to see where the extra is going to come from to drive Labour support down to the extent that it will hand the Tories a majority. Looking at the possible candidates to take over from May, I don't see any of them capable of breaking the Labour voting alliance. Some - Johnson, Rees Mogg, Gove, Hunt - are likely to reinforce it.
However, what that leaves us with is statsis. It is also becoming absolutely clear that with Corbyn and the far left in control, Labour is not going to overtake the Tories in seat numbers, let alone win a majority. As things stand, it looks like the next general election will produce a result that will be pretty similar to the last one. What changes that? The first party to find a leader who does not automatically repel 40% of voters will probably reap the reward. The challenge for both parties is to find one.
Corbyn's got a lock on the young, the poor, the public sector, renters, Muslims and champagne socialists.
That adds up to a lot of people but they tend to be concentrated in the same areas.
And the identity politics Corbyn deals in works as a project fear for all those not in one of Corbyn's voting blocks.
Sure - but the insinuation that the Tories do not do identity politics is a bit far fetched. Both sides do. That's how we have become so polarised. To win, one of the big parties is going to have to break free of the comfort blanket such an approach brings.
Certainly the Conservatives do identity politics - homeowners and the old for example.
Which seats that Cameron gained from the LibDems are now 'in play' ?
Solihull ? Berwick ? Harrogate ? Colchester ? Hereford ? Montgomery ? Brecon ? All those in SW England ?
You keep conflating SW London with where the LibDems had MPs.
In reality the LibDems continue to do terribly in many areas of former strength.
Well Richmond obviously but also Cheltenham, South Cambs and Watford. Most the areas you mention were not voting yesterday. We will see how they do next year. The problem the Tories have is that, unlike 1992, they are already a minority government. It takes relatively few losses for them to lose power altogether.
Do you think this looks like an imminent LibDem gain ?
So that gives you Richmond (and there might be an unwinding of the byelection effect there) and Cheltenham.
And while the Conservatives need to be holding their 2017 seats they need to be regaining others they lost or winning new ones and it wasn't the metropolitan liberals of Stoke South, Mansfield and Walsall North who kept them in government. Or I suspect the metropolitan liberals of Moray, Angus and Banff.
St Ives will likely go yellow next time too
Maybe and maybe not.
There's a long list of seats which we were told would 'go yellow next time' and didn't.
On-topic: has Corbyn's bubble burst? No but it has perhaps deflated a little.
Labour and Corbyn did remarkably well in GE2017 by harvesting "risk free" votes from people who knew Labour could not possibly get in. Or such was the narrative -- but it looks from Thursday that an awful lot of those voters have not been scared back to nurse.
Corbyn's bubble might have stopped rising but it is not sinking either. Theresa May won't be calling another snap election on the back of Thursday's results.
Thursday was not about electing Corbyn as PM though. Still "risk free" putting the X against Labour. (Although those few hard left councils that were happy to be held up as Corbynite did fare badly....)
There's lots of voters who can vote risk free for Corbyn at a GE even if he is expected to win.
Because they either have nothing to lose or will be protected.
Like many Tory voters, of course. Venality and self-interest is not a one way street.
Off topic, I had an interesting chat with one of our clerks yesterday. She is Leicester born, of Antiguan descent (Leicesters small West Indian community seems disproportionately of Antiguan descent). I asked her if she knew anyone affected by this Windrush scandal. She says her own cousin had been on the news, having been in detention pending deportation. Her elderly, RAF veteran father said he knows at least a dozen people who have been deported despite being legally here since the Sixties.
It sounds as if the numbers are going to be huge, and these stories getting more and more coverage, being good human interest. I have my doubts as to the Home Offices capability to sort it out. This is a story with legs.
Javid out by Xmas?
I don't think so, but it will rather test him by fire, whether he really wants to sort out the mess, or to cover up the mistakes of his predecessors.
The turnout locally was usually between 20 and 30% only, so I suspect only the more committed voted. Whether they are a good sample of the majority is speculation.
Perhaps we're lower here because many seats are so one-sided?
Looking at the results in detail it was a great result for Labour with a net gain of 77 seats in addition to the 324 plus gains they made in 2014. Tories made further losses on the 234 they had in 2014. They had a net no change in councils whereas the Tories had a net loss of two. Best result for Lab in London since 1971.Yet the mainstream media are telling us that it was a bad night for Labour.
Comparing this round of elections (ie the London dominated elections) with those previously the number of councillors lost by the government were:
1978 -461 1982 -98 Falklands War reduces losses 1986 -975 1990 -222 1994 -516 1998 -88 Peak Blair popularity 2002 -334 2006 -319 2010 +417 GE on same day allows Labour to make gains 2010 -236 Con -310 LibDem 2014 -35
Opposition parties normally win local elections. Since records began, albeit only since 1982, the oppositions that have gone on to win the next general election have won double digit leads in all the preceding local elections, starting with those in the immediate post-election year. Not only is Labour far from having a 10-point lead, the fact that it has no lead at all should be deeply disappointing.
Some Labour supporters may comfort themselves with the observation that the 11 point Tory lead in the PNS at last year’s local elections collapsed within the space of a month to a 2.5 point general election lead. That experience was a salutary lesson that public opinion can change dramatically. But that does not mean that we should expect the Conservatives to run a similarly disastrous campaign in the future.
While Labour did poorly, the Conservatives cannot rest easy. Their performance does not indicate that they would most likely regain their majority at the next general election.
Mr. Richard, homeowners aren't 'identity politics'. Identity politics is about demographics (race, gender etc).
Interesting to consider age, though, as that is a demographic, you can't alter it, but unlike other such factors it, necessarily, changes.
Brexitist Nationalism is rooted in Identity politics.
Whether one agrees with "identity politics" or not largely depends on whether you are in the "in group" or in the "out group", of the particular identity under discussion.
On-topic: has Corbyn's bubble burst? No but it has perhaps deflated a little.
Labour and Corbyn did remarkably well in GE2017 by harvesting "risk free" votes from people who knew Labour could not possibly get in. Or such was the narrative -- but it looks from Thursday that an awful lot of those voters have not been scared back to nurse.
Corbyn's bubble might have stopped rising but it is not sinking either. Theresa May won't be calling another snap election on the back of Thursday's results.
Thursday was not about electing Corbyn as PM though. Still "risk free" putting the X against Labour. (Although those few hard left councils that were happy to be held up as Corbynite did fare badly....)
There's lots of voters who can vote risk free for Corbyn at a GE even if he is expected to win.
Because they either have nothing to lose or will be protected.
Like many Tory voters, of course. Venality and self-interest is not a one way street.
Which is why the Conservative attempts to cut back on pensioner benefits and increase taxes in 2017 caused them so much aggravation.
Marx, Lenin and Trotsky are sometimes mentioned, I think that is the trio McDonnell quoted at one point, are some of the people brought up as part of this ideology... often as part of some right wing propaganda to imply that Britain is going to become communist.. occasionally as infiltrators, although that is usually just 'the trots' apparently.
The problem with this theory and I have seen cyclefree go down this left wing ideology equals anti semitic route, is just how many Jewish people there are involved. The Marx, Lenin and Trotsky trio for example all I understand are Jewish or have some Jewish heritage (happy to be corrected)
I'm not sure Corbyn or the rest of them are actually all that far left or going to impose some kind of communism in the UK but the people often linked to them or sometimes mentioned and used against them as part of this idea of them being really far left are often Jewish, or have Jewish heritage which I assume is Jewish enough for the sake of this debate.
Edit: I swear I posted this before I saw Ydoethur's reply
Not Lenin. The other two were Jewish, as were other leading RSDLP figures e.g. Kamenev, Zinoviev, Molotov (although he came later and his link was by marriage) and Martov, leader of the Mensheviks. That was also true of German socialists e.g. Rosa Luxembourg, leader of the Spartacists.
That is one reason why anti-Communism was often bound up with anti-Semitism in the 1920s and 1930s - most notoriously in the case of rather too many supporters of a certain A. Hitler.
We will take your word for the edit!
Ahh thank you, I did see a list somewhere, think that Jewdas group put something out with a few of those names on read up a limited amount of Rosa but the rest mostly fleeting.
That wasn't Hitler's reason though I assume?
If anyone ever finds out what Hitler's reasons were for hating the Jews, or exactly when he started hating them, I'll be able to answer that question for you.
Looking at the results in detail it was a great result for Labour with a net gain of 77 seats in addition to the 324 plus gains they made in 2014. Tories made further losses on the 234 they had in 2014. They had a net no change in councils whereas the Tories had a net loss of two. Best result for Lab in London since 1971.Yet the mainstream media are telling us that it was a bad night for Labour.
No, it showed they are not falling apart. However, it also suggests they are making very little progress, and outside London are actually if anything falling back. The real story is how much of the status quo there was.
However you spin it it wasn't a 'great' result. Rather, there are too many people over spinning it the other way as a cataclysmic one.
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what a universally anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory media landscape we have (BBC in particular is shameful given its supposed, though laughable, impartial status). Simple fact is that that Labour went forward and Tories backward from already high and low positions respectively.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
Everyone knows that the Conservatives’ current preferred xenophobia is anti-Muslim. Claiming virtue by not being as anti-Jewish as some Labour supporters is, in the circumstances, feeble.
I would ask for your evidence but as I’m about to go off to the garden centre - it being a glorious day for being outside not hunched over a screen, I will wish you all a pleasant day.
Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
What were the shares of the votes in London?
Also, what were the National gains/losses if seats formerly held by UKIP are excluded?
Labour led by 15% across London, but I don't have the full figures.
I guess multi-candidate wards complicate the equation, though you could just take the votes for the best performing candidate for each party
I'll try and crunch the numbers.
Some individual borough scores are Harrow 47% Lab to 45% Con, Barnet 44% Con to 39% Lab, Enfield 55% Lab to 34% Con, Croydon 44% Lab to 40% Con, Westminster 43% Con to 41% Lab, Richmond 47% Lib Dem to 38% Con.
Richmond Park was probably very close on those results - especially if the reports of hundreds of EU votes per ward are correct.
Without looking at the individual wards it seems that the Conservatives have totally collapsed in both Enfield and Ilford but are holding on better in the Chingford and Woodford area.
The next census will show some significant demographic changes I expect.
IDS will be retiring next time unless he wants to lose.
The Tories only lost 2 seats in Waltham Forest where most of his Chingford and Woodford Green seat is, so that is encouraging for IDS in some respects.
The Tories did badly in Redbridge, losing 14 seats but that borough mainly incorporates Ilford North and Ilford South which the Tories would now need a landslide majority of over 100 seats to regain from Labour
Do you work for CCHQ ? They only had 16 seats - now they have 14.
The problem with this theory and I have seen cyclefree go down this left wing ideology equals anti semitic route, is just how many Jewish people there are involved. The Marx, Lenin and Trotsky trio for example all I understand are Jewish or have some Jewish heritage (happy to be corrected)
Marx was a raving anti-semite and wrote a whole book on the "Jewish Question".
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what a universally anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory media landscape we have (BBC in particular is shameful given its supposed, though laughable, impartial status). Simple fact is that that Labour went forward and Tories backward from already high and low positions respectively.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
It wasn't bad for Labour. But it did confirm that if the party is led by Jeremy Corbyn it cannot win a Commons majority. It also showed that creating a safe space for anti-Semites and Jewbaiters has electoral consequences.
Looking at the results in detail it was a great result for Labour with a net gain of 77 seats in addition to the 324 plus gains they made in 2014. Tories made further losses on the 234 they had in 2014. They had a net no change in councils whereas the Tories had a net loss of two. Best result for Lab in London since 1971.Yet the mainstream media are telling us that it was a bad night for Labour.
It wasn't a bad night for Labour but nor was it a 'great result'.
What it showed is that Labour remains strong where the Corbyn voting blocks are concentrated but has increasing weaknesses in some other places and is making little progress overall.
Jezza will be PM his campaigning skills in a GE are legendary.
He dI'd very well last time, and there will be additional pressures on the tories, but the assumption because he did well last time he will again is no certainty.
Nor, if course, is that the tories will learn a lesson and do better. I happen to think Corbyn will win next time . But there's a line between confidence and over confidence. On Thursday labour crossed it, the question is if they will again.
Looking at the results in detail it was a great result for Labour with a net gain of 77 seats in addition to the 324 plus gains they made in 2014. Tories made further losses on the 234 they had in 2014. They had a net no change in councils whereas the Tories had a net loss of two. Best result for Lab in London since 1971.Yet the mainstream media are telling us that it was a bad night for Labour.
The problem with this theory and I have seen cyclefree go down this left wing ideology equals anti semitic route, is just how many Jewish people there are involved. The Marx, Lenin and Trotsky trio for example all I understand are Jewish or have some Jewish heritage (happy to be corrected)
Marx was a raving anti-semite and wrote a whole book on the "Jewish Question".
Well I haven't read it, but I'm surprised that Marx could be a raving anti-semite and yet I've reached my late fifties and this is the first time I have ever heard that suggestion? It's not like Marx is someone who nobody has to an axe to grind with.
By the way, BBC says that, following Tower Hamlets, Labour has a net gain of +77 seats, compared to the Lib Dems' +75 seats.
Are the Lib Dems still the "clear winners"?
Yes, because it's a relative judgement based on expectations and the party's overall position. Their position was lower, and has proportionally improved more, particularly in terms of councils controlled . That doesn't mean it was a disaster for Labour, it wasn't, but i don't know why there's an issue judging each party against different expectations - each is in a different situation, and success for each is different.
When you think about it for more than a second you realise that May should have gone to Barnet. Not only was it a Tory win in the capital of a Council Labour expected to take, it would have emphasised the negativities that are now surrounding Corbyn and kept that theme in the media. But May simply has no idea how to campaign. Her "victory" speech yesterday was painful, bordering on embarrassing. She is intensely uncomfortable doing that kind of stuff and it shows.
As I said yesterday I think that these results were in fact a lot worse for the Tories than they appeared on the surface. Briefly:
123 UKIP losses really should have been gains for all. Instead they simply hid the extent of the losses the Tories suffered.
The significant step forward by the Lib Dems, who did better and better ending up the clear winners of the day, is very bad news for the Tories. Those seats that Cameron won in 2015 are now very much back in play.
The collapse of UKIP has made the Tory vote much less efficient. We see this by comparing 2015 with 2017. It wasn't just that Labour did much better. Cameron's 37% was much better distributed for winning a majority than May's 42%. Similarly yesterday the Tories had the biggest increase in the share of the vote compared with 2014 but they lost seats and Councils.
This is because Cameron and Osborne could reach out beyond the Tory heartlands to metropolitan liberals. It cost them a slew of votes to UKIP but it didn't cost them any seats. The re and the hope that fear and distaste of Corbyn is enough. It may not be.
If the situation was reversed, and the Conservatives had reached parity with Labour, eight years into a Labour government, the consensus would be that it was a terrrrrible night for the Conservatives.
As I said last night, the Conservatives have gone from having 8,809 councillors to having 8,778. There are much worse fates for a governing party.
Indeed. Despite understandable relief at holding onto most flagship councils clearly it was not a triumphant night for them, DavidL is right to point out problems they need to address, but the context is not irrelevant and minor losses are, as Curtice pointed out, credible as performances go 8 years in.
Gove comes in to joint favourite with Mogg at 4-1 with Ladbrokes and Corals in the next Tory leader market.Trends indicate laying the favourite and 2nd fav so all the more reason to lay both.Remember George Osborne at 6-4 ?
The problem with this theory and I have seen cyclefree go down this left wing ideology equals anti semitic route, is just how many Jewish people there are involved. The Marx, Lenin and Trotsky trio for example all I understand are Jewish or have some Jewish heritage (happy to be corrected)
Marx was a raving anti-semite and wrote a whole book on the "Jewish Question".
Well I haven't read it, but I'm surprised that Marx could be a raving anti-semite and yet I've reached my late fifties and this is the first time I have ever heard that suggestion? It's not like Marx is someone who nobody has to an axe to grind with.
I thought Marx was Jewish. His father "converted" to Lutheranism to avoid persecution. But nowadays anybody can be labelled "anti-Semite".
If you want a homeland for the Palestinians, you are an anti-Semite. Like Ed Miliband, Marion Kozak.
Everyone knows that the Conservatives’ current preferred xenophobia is anti-Muslim. Claiming virtue by not being as anti-Jewish as some Labour supporters is, in the circumstances, feeble.
The Tories reinstating councillors post-vote who were suspended for racism pre-vote in order to secure majorities is the clearest indication of just how serious they are about the issue. Both parties have major issues. My concern is Labour and it will be interesting to see what happens from here. There are no more excuses.
I would not be surprised if the tory council tallly dropped as the party resuspended somehow. Not everyone provisionally suspended of something is guity, but these examples were, and while there might be questions what is proportionate punishment for specific offences, the timing makes it clearly cynical and worrisome. Not a great look.
Gove comes in to joint favourite with Mogg at 4-1 with Ladbrokes and Corals in the next Tory leader market.Trends indicate laying the favourite and 2nd fav so all the more reason to lay both.Remember George Osborne at 6-4 ?
In the days after the 2015 election Osborne and Johnson were both pretty much evens as next PM. Very profitable for the layers.
I’m not laying Gove, IMO he’s the Theresa-under-a-bus-over-Brexit candidate for the next 10 months.
"They are really pushing for a £100 stake limit? Ridiculous!"
No, I think the plan was for a £30 limit (the current limit is £100, and £30 wouldn't change them too fundamentally). But MPs want to neuter the machines with a £2 limit instead.
I fail to see what value those machines have, apart from as a source of revenue for the bookmakers. A £2 limit is generous.
Everyone here in favour of the £2 limit (which I think is just about all of us) should write to their MP this weekend on the subject. If the denizens of a political gambling website can’t care about this issue, then no-one will except the industry lobbyists.
An element of "Do as we say, not as we do" perhaps? Unless we all actually do limit ourselves to £2 stakes.
Surely the point was about stakes on theSE machines, not stakes generally.
Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
What were the shares of the votes in London?
Also, what were the National gains/losses if seats formerly held by UKIP are excluded?
Labour led by 15% across London, but I don't have the full figures.
I guess multi-candidate wards complicate the equation, though you could just take the votes for the best performing candidate for each party
I'll try and crunch the numbers.
Some individual borough scores are Harrow 47% Lab to 45% Con, Barnet 44% Con to 39% Lab, Enfield 55% Lab to 34% Con, Croydon 44% Lab to 40% Con, Westminster 43% Con to 41% Lab, Richmond 47% Lib Dem to 38% Con.
Richmond Park was probably very close on those results - especially if the reports of hundreds of EU votes per ward are correct.
Without looking at the individual wards it seems that the Conservatives have totally collapsed in both Enfield and Ilford but are holding on better in the Chingford and Woodford area.
The next census will show some significant demographic changes I expect.
Richmond Park would be 43/42 Lib Dem/Con on these numbers. Chingford would be solid.
When you think about it for more than a second you realise that May should have gone to Barnet. Not only was it a Tory win in the capital of a Council Labour expected to take, it would have emphasised the negativities that are now surrounding Corbyn and kept that theme in the media. But May simply has no idea how to campaign. Her "victory" speech yesterday was painful, bordering on embarrassing. She is intensely uncomfortable doing that kind of stuff and it shows.
As I said yesterday I think that these results were in fact a lot worse for the Tories than they appeared on the surface. Briefly:
123 UKIP losses really should have been gains for all. Instead they simply hid the extent of the losses the Tories suffered.
The significant step forward by the Lib Dems, who did better and better ending up the clear winners of the day, is very bad news for the Tories. Those seats that Cameron won in 2015 are now very much back in play.
The collapse of UKIP has made the Tory vote much less efficient. We see this by comparing 2015 with 2017. It wasn't just that Labour did much better. Cameron's 37% was much better distributed for winning a majority than May's 42%. Similarly yesterday the Tories had the biggest increase in the share of the vote compared with 2014 but they lost seats and Councils.
This is because Cameron and Osborne could reach out beyond the Tory heartlands to metropolitan liberals. It cost them a slew of votes to UKIP but it didn't cost them any seats. The re and the hope that fear and distaste of Corbyn is enough. It may not be.
If the situation was reversed, and the Conservatives had reached parity with Labour, eight years into a Labour government, the consensus would be that it was a terrrrrible night for the Conservatives.
As I said last night, the Conservatives have gone from having 8,809 councillors to having 8,778. There are much worse fates for a governing party.
Indeed. Despite understandable relief at holding onto most flagship councils clearly it was not a triumphant night for them, DavidL is right to point out problems they need to address, but the context is not irrelevant and minor losses are, as Curtice pointed out, credible as performances go 8 years in.
The key issues which the Conservatives need to address are housing affordability and student debt.
Two issues which were exacerbated by Cameron and Osborne (despite all that 'reaching out to metropolitan liberals').
Comparing this round of elections (ie the London dominated elections) with those previously the number of councillors lost by the government were:
1978 -461 1982 -98 Falklands War reduces losses 1986 -975 1990 -222 1994 -516 1998 -88 Peak Blair popularity 2002 -334 2006 -319 2010 +417 GE on same day allows Labour to make gains 2010 -236 Con -310 LibDem 2014 -35
Labour gained 417 seats in 2010 and 324 in 2014. These 77 are on top of that. These are very good results, make no mistake. We are at 1994 territory now in this particular cycle.
Given his support for gay rights one wonders how he manages to reconcile that with his praise for Russia, Iran, Syria and the Palestinian leadership, all of whom hate gays and take active steps to make their lives miserable.
I think you'll struggle to find many examples of his praising the leadership of these countries/groups - he was once polite to Hamas at a meeting and has ageeed it was unwise, and that's about it. Can you find a quote where he's said he positively likes Assad or Putin? What he's consistently done is oppose armed intervention against them, which is a mix of near-pacifism and Nato-scepticism.
Generally speaking, all the conflicts they're involved in have some nasty characters on both sides (nobody looking at the Ukraine issue in detail can identify either side as consistently decent); the Western leadership tends to attack one side, prompting leftists to redress the balance.
Oh for Christ's sake Nick. I've generally liked your comments on here but this is dreadful. If you notice, and this goes for everything, Corbyn rarely says anything that can be pointedly pinned down to unequivocal support for anything other than generally nice things - peace, bread and land as someone once said. It's his schtick and why he's been much more successful than his mentor Tony Benn - who at least had the decency and honesty to explore the logical consequences of his ideas rather than give support for the nice sounding bits and then disown the obvious and morally appalling conclusions. Corbyn is a reverse McCavity - he's always bloody there offering general support to deeply unpleasant people but didn't see or hear their worst behaviour or remarks - even when they are advisers he's personally appointed. We rightly condemn people on the right who associate with extremists and lunatics even if they don't explicitly come out and say it, but you and a section of the left seem unable to do the same with Corbyn. It's dreadful. We know he's quite happy to agree with some of the nastiest people by nodding along - he doesn't have to give a lecture on it. Many of us who want a left wing government but cannot in all good conscience support a man whose closest advisers have supported North Korea are utterly fed up of this apologism.
The turnout locally was usually between 20 and 30% only, so I suspect only the more committed voted. Whether they are a good sample of the majority is speculation.
Perhaps we're lower here because many seats are so one-sided?
Turnout in Barnes was 50%. It was similar in nearby Mortlake where the new LibDem councillor won her seat by a single vote. Every vote counts.
"They are really pushing for a £100 stake limit? Ridiculous!"
No, I think the plan was for a £30 limit (the current limit is £100, and £30 wouldn't change them too fundamentally). But MPs want to neuter the machines with a £2 limit instead.
I fail to see what value those machines have, apart from as a source of revenue for the bookmakers. A £2 limit is generous.
Everyone here in favour of the £2 limit (which I think is just about all of us) should write to their MP this weekend on the subject. If the denizens of a political gambling website can’t care about this issue, then no-one will except the industry lobbyists.
An element of "Do as we say, not as we do" perhaps? Unless we all actually do limit ourselves to £2 stakes.
Surely the point was about stakes on theSE machines, not stakes generally.
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what a universally anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory media landscape we have (BBC in particular is shameful given its supposed, though laughable, impartial status). Simple fact is that that Labour went forward and Tories backward from already high and low positions respectively.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
I seem to recall the bbc headlines were about it being mixed, which it was. Labour lost control of a few areas, failed to seize most targets, but did make gains and it was no disaster. the tories held several at risk councils and made some gains, but did also lose several. The lds got some big wins in councils, but the success looks highly targeted.
The histrionics about the media doesn't help, whoever does it. A top lady from momentum , I forget the name as it was around 5am, complained about the same yet even she called the results mixed. Because they were mixed.
The problem with this theory and I have seen cyclefree go down this left wing ideology equals anti semitic route, is just how many Jewish people there are involved. The Marx, Lenin and Trotsky trio for example all I understand are Jewish or have some Jewish heritage (happy to be corrected)
Marx was a raving anti-semite and wrote a whole book on the "Jewish Question".
Well I haven't read it, but I'm surprised that Marx could be a raving anti-semite and yet I've reached my late fifties and this is the first time I have ever heard that suggestion? It's not like Marx is someone who nobody has to an axe to grind with.
I thought Marx was Jewish. His father "converted" to Lutheranism to avoid persecution. But nowadays anybody can be labelled "anti-Semite".
If you want a homeland for the Palestinians, you are an anti-Semite. Like Ed Miliband, Marion Kozak.
Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
so tories made a net GAIN outside of London....that really is good for a government in power for 8 years.
Well done to TSE and David Herdson for their predictions. Sage Yorkshire-men.
Not wishing to blow my own trumpet (oh, go on then), the Conservatives had a net gain of four on Wakefield Council, which was near the top end of our hopes - we picked up all our target seats and came close in the two stretch target ones. It was clear that there must be opportunities in other similar places.
The turnout locally was usually between 20 and 30% only, so I suspect only the more committed voted. Whether they are a good sample of the majority is speculation.
Perhaps we're lower here because many seats are so one-sided?
Turnout in Barnes was 50%. It was similar in nearby Mortlake where the new LibDem councillor won her seat by a single vote. Every vote counts.
David I suspect you are quoting Wilkepedia but Rallings & Thrasher have the 2011 NEV vote shares as Con 38 Lab 37 LD 16.
I was quoting Wikipedia, which is quoting the BBC's NEV - presumably John Curtis's figures. There is always an element of subjectivity around these projections on methodology, plus the statistical fluctuations that come with the choice of specific wards, if the figures are calculated that way.
Comparing this round of elections (ie the London dominated elections) with those previously the number of councillors lost by the government were:
1978 -461 1982 -98 Falklands War reduces losses 1986 -975 1990 -222 1994 -516 1998 -88 Peak Blair popularity 2002 -334 2006 -319 2010 +417 GE on same day allows Labour to make gains 2010 -236 Con -310 LibDem 2014 -35
Labour gained 417 seats in 2010 and 324 in 2014. These 77 are on top of that. These are very good results, make no mistake. We are at 1994 territory now in this particular cycle.
The reason why Labour has a similar number of councillors is that nearly half of this round of elections is in London and London has shifted strongly towards Labour during the last generation.
This is counterbalanced by a pro Conservative shift in much of the rest of the country but which didn't vote this year.
Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
What were the shares of the votes in London?
Also, what were the National gains/losses if seats formerly held by UKIP are excluded?
Labour led by 15% across London, but I don't have the full figures.
I guess multi-candidate wards complicate the equation, though you could just take the votes for the best performing candidate for each party
I'll try and crunch the numbers.
Some individual borough scores are Harrow 47% Lab to 45% Con, Barnet 44% Con to 39% Lab, Enfield 55% Lab to 34% Con, Croydon 44% Lab to 40% Con, Westminster 43% Con to 41% Lab, Richmond 47% Lib Dem to 38% Con.
Richmond Park was probably very close on those results - especially if the reports of hundreds of EU votes per ward are correct.
Without looking at the individual wards it seems that the Conservatives have totally collapsed in both Enfield and Ilford but are holding on better in the Chingford and Woodford area.
The next census will show some significant demographic changes I expect.
IDS will be retiring next time unless he wants to lose.
The Tories only lost 2 seats in Waltham Forest where most of his Chingford and Woodford Green seat is, so that is encouraging for IDS in some respects.
The Tories did badly in Redbridge, losing 14 seats but that borough mainly incorporates Ilford North and Ilford South which the Tories would now need a landslide majority of over 100 seats to regain from Labour
Do you work for CCHQ ? They only had 16 seats - now they have 14.
Almost all those seats in Chingford and Woodford Green.
IDS would comfortably hold his seat on Thursday's swing
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what a universally anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory media landscape we have (BBC in particular is shameful given its supposed, though laughable, impartial status). Simple fact is that that Labour went forward and Tories backward from already high and low positions respectively.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
The results of a Corbyn Government would be so devastating to the country that I wouldn't mind the media asserting that he planned to appoint his ex-lover as Home Secretary, gave comfort to Russia after they deployed a nerve agent on our soil, and had referred to Hamas as his friends.
The problem with this theory and I have seen cyclefree go down this left wing ideology equals anti semitic route, is just how many Jewish people there are involved. The Marx, Lenin and Trotsky trio for example all I understand are Jewish or have some Jewish heritage (happy to be corrected)
Marx was a raving anti-semite and wrote a whole book on the "Jewish Question".
Well I haven't read it, but I'm surprised that Marx could be a raving anti-semite and yet I've reached my late fifties and this is the first time I have ever heard that suggestion? It's not like Marx is someone who nobody has to an axe to grind with.
I thought Marx was Jewish. His father "converted" to Lutheranism to avoid persecution. But nowadays anybody can be labelled an anti semite.
Any idiot can label someone anything they like. The question is would reasonable people do so.
Some people love to say, for instance, that you cannot criticise Israel in any way without being labelled anti semitic. That is bollocks. I disagree with policies of the Israeli state for instance. Do idiots exist who will call any such criticism, any at all, antisemitic? Probably. But most do not, but anti semites exist who then pretend they are part of the innocent criticised by the idiots .
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what a universally anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory media landscape we have (BBC in particular is shameful given its supposed, though laughable, impartial status). Simple fact is that that Labour went forward and Tories backward from already high and low positions respectively.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
To put it in perspective May did as well on Thursday as Blair in 1998 in terms of net change
David I suspect you are quoting Wilkepedia but Rallings & Thrasher have the 2011 NEV vote shares as Con 38 Lab 37 LD 16.
I was quoting Wikipedia, which is quoting the BBC's NEV - presumably John Curtis's figures. There is always an element of subjectivity around these projections on methodology, plus the statistical fluctuations that come with the choice of specific wards, if the figures are calculated that way.
Given that the Conservative made net gains in 2011 I think the 38/37 numbers are more likely than the 35/37.
Given his support for gay rights one wonders how he manages to reconcile that with his praise for Russia, Iran, Syria and the Palestinian leadership, all of whom hate gays and take active steps to make their lives miserable.
I think you'll struggle to find many examples of his praising the leadership of these countries/groups - he was once polite to Hamas at a meeting and has ageeed it was unwise, and that's about it. Can you find a quote where he's said he positively likes Assad or Putin? What he's consistently done is oppose armed intervention against them, which is a mix of near-pacifism and Nato-scepticism.
Generally speaking, all the conflicts they're involved in have some nasty characters on both sides (nobody looking at the Ukraine issue in detail can identify either side as consistently decent); the Western leadership tends to attack one side, prompting leftists to redress the balance.
Oh for Christ's sake Nick. I've generally liked your comments on here but this is dreadful. If you notice, and this goes for everything, Corbyn rarely says anything that can be pointedly pinned down to unequivocal support for anything other than generally nice things - peace, bread and land as someone once said. It's his schtick and why he's been much more successful than his mentor Tony Benn - who at least had the decency and honesty to explore the logical consequences of his ideas rather than give support for the nice sounding bits and then disown the obvious and morally appalling conclusions. Corbyn is a reverse McCavity - he's always bloody there offering general support to deeply unpleasant people but didn't see or hear their worst behaviour or remarks - even when they are advisers he's personally appointed. We rightly condemn people on the right who associate with extremists and lunatics even if they don't explicitly come out and say it, but you and a section of the left seem unable to do the same with Corbyn. It's dreadful. We know he's quite happy to agree with some of the nastiest people by nodding along - he doesn't have to give a lecture on it. Many of us who want a left wing government but cannot in all good conscience support a man whose closest advisers have supported North Korea are utterly fed up of this apologism.
One of the best, and sadly - bang on the money - rants on PB I have read.
"They are really pushing for a £100 stake limit? Ridiculous!"
No, I think the plan was for a £30 limit (the current limit is £100, and £30 wouldn't change them too fundamentally). But MPs want to neuter the machines with a £2 limit instead.
I fail to see what value those machines have, apart from as a source of revenue for the bookmakers. A £2 limit is generous.
Everyone here in favour of the £2 limit (which I think is just about all of us) should write to their MP this weekend on the subject. If the denizens of a political gambling website can’t care about this issue, then no-one will except the industry lobbyists.
An element of "Do as we say, not as we do" perhaps? Unless we all actually do limit ourselves to £2 stakes.
Surely the point was about stakes on theSE machines, not stakes generally.
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what a universally anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory media landscape we have (BBC in particular is shameful given its supposed, though laughable, impartial status). Simple fact is that that Labour went forward and Tories backward from already high and low positions respectively.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
I seem to recall the bbc headlines were about it being mixed, which it was. Labour lost control of a few areas, failed to seize most targets, but did make gains and it was no disaster. the tories held several at risk councils and made some gains, but did also lose several. The lds got some big wins in councils, but the success looks highly targeted.
The histrionics about the media doesn't help, whoever does it. A top lady from momentum , I forget the name as it was around 5am, complained about the same yet even she called the results mixed. Because they were mixed.
The results are mixed but the reason they are 'bad' for Labour is not media bias but because oppositions need breakthroughs - they need to show they're winning over the country and local elections can be a decent barometer of that. Given how awful the government is you'd expect Labour to be demolishing the Tories - but they are not, partially because Brexit has fixed a lot of people's politics a certain way, and partially because on awful lot of traditional Labour voters really can't vote for a man as morally unacceptable as Jeremy Corbyn.
Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
so tories made a net GAIN outside of London....that really is good for a government in power for 8 years.
Well done to TSE and David Herdson for their predictions. Sage Yorkshire-men.
Not wishing to blow my own trumpet (oh, go on then), the Conservatives had a net gain of four on Wakefield Council, which was near the top end of our hopes - we picked up all our target seats and came close in the two stretch target ones. It was clear that there must be opportunities in other similar places.
Morley & Outwood now has a Conservative councillor to go with its Conservative MP.
Which seats that Cameron gained from the LibDems are now 'in play' ?
Solihull ? Berwick ? Harrogate ? Colchester ? Hereford ? Montgomery ? Brecon ? All those in SW England ?
You keep conflating SW London with where the LibDems had MPs.
In reality the LibDems continue to do terribly in many areas of former strength.
Well Richmond obviously but also Cheltenham, South Cambs and Watford. Most the areas you mention were not voting yesterday. We will see how they do next year. The problem the Tories have is that, unlike 1992, they are already a minority government. It takes relatively few losses for them to lose power altogether.
Do you think this looks like an imminent LibDem gain ?
So that gives you Richmond (and there might be an unwinding of the byelection effect there) and Cheltenham.
And while the Conservatives need to be holding their 2017 seats they need to be regaining others they lost or winning new ones and it wasn't the metropolitan liberals of Stoke South, Mansfield and Walsall North who kept them in government. Or I suspect the metropolitan liberals of Moray, Angus and Banff.
St Ives will likely go yellow next time too
Maybe and maybe not.
There's a long list of seats which we were told would 'go yellow next time' and didn't.
Many LibDem gains have actually been surprises.
They did pretty well in St Ives in 2017. Iirc they were only about 300 votes short.
"They are really pushing for a £100 stake limit? Ridiculous!"
No, I think the plan was for a £30 limit (the current limit is £100, and £30 wouldn't change them too fundamentally). But MPs want to neuter the machines with a £2 limit instead.
I fail to see what value those machines have, apart from as a source of revenue for the bookmakers. A £2 limit is generous.
Everyone here in favour of the £2 limit (which I think is just about all of us) should write to their MP this weekend on the subject. If the denizens of a political gambling website can’t care about this issue, then no-one will except the industry lobbyists.
...
Surely the point was about stakes on theSE machines, not stakes generally.
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what a universally anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory media landscape we have (BBC in particular is shameful given its supposed, though laughable, impartial status). Simple fact is that that Labour went forward and Tories backward from already high and low positions respectively.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
...
The histrionics about the media doesn't help, whoever does it. A top lady from momentum , I forget the name as it was around 5am, complained about the same yet even she called the results mixed. Because they were mixed.
The results are mixed but the reason they are 'bad' for Labour is not media bias but because oppositions need breakthroughs - they need to show they're winning over the country and local elections can be a decent barometer of that. Given how awful the government is you'd expect Labour to be demolishing the Tories - but they are not, partially because Brexit has fixed a lot of people's politics a certain way, and partially because on awful lot of traditional Labour voters really can't vote for a man as morally unacceptable as Jeremy Corbyn.
Let's get away from perceptions and look at real facts:
Start with 1994. Labour having made 516 net gains
Labour net gains/ losses
1998 -88 2002 -334 2006 -319
Total Net Losses = 741
2010 +417 2014 +324 2018 +77
Total Net Gains = 818
So, Labour's position in this particular cycle at this moment is 77 better than it was after the 1994 landslide.
Looking at the results in detail it was a great result for Labour with a net gain of 77 seats in addition to the 324 plus gains they made in 2014. Tories made further losses on the 234 they had in 2014. They had a net no change in councils whereas the Tories had a net loss of two. Best result for Lab in London since 1971.Yet the mainstream media are telling us that it was a bad night for Labour.
I think it's a case of Labour not doing quite as well as they should be doing in the circumstances (8 years into an unpopular Tory government) but I agree the media and Blairites are being a tad hysterical with the "disaster for Labour" rhetroric.
Which seats that Cameron gained from the LibDems are now 'in play' ?
Solihull ? Berwick ? Harrogate ? Colchester ? Hereford ? Montgomery ? Brecon ? All those in SW England ?
You keep conflating SW London with where the LibDems had MPs.
In reality the LibDems continue to do terribly in many areas of former strength.
Well Richmond obviously but also Cheltenham, South Cambs and Watford. Most the areas you mention were not voting yesterday. We will see how they do next year. The problem the Tories have is that, unlike 1992, they are already a minority government. It takes relatively few losses for them to lose power altogether.
Do you think this looks like an imminent LibDem gain ?
So that gives you Richmond (and there might be an unwinding of the byelection effect there) and Cheltenham.
And while the Conservatives need to be holding their 2017 seats they need to be regaining others they lost or winning new ones and it wasn't the metropolitan liberals of Stoke South, Mansfield and Walsall North who kept them in government. Or I suspect the metropolitan liberals of Moray, Angus and Banff.
St Ives will likely go yellow next time too
Maybe and maybe not.
There's a long list of seats which we were told would 'go yellow next time' and didn't.
Many LibDem gains have actually been surprises.
They did pretty well in St Ives in 2017. Iirc they were only about 300 votes short.
True although I wonder if Andrew George had a sizeable personal vote. He is 60 this year.
And there's been plenty of places where the LibDems have got close to winning one year, expected to win the next time, but faded away instead.
Comparing this round of elections (ie the London dominated elections) with those previously the number of councillors lost by the government were:
1978 -461 1982 -98 Falklands War reduces losses 1986 -975 1990 -222 1994 -516 1998 -88 Peak Blair popularity 2002 -334 2006 -319 2010 +417 GE on same day allows Labour to make gains 2010 -236 Con -310 LibDem 2014 -35
Labour gained 417 seats in 2010 and 324 in 2014. These 77 are on top of that. These are very good results, make no mistake. We are at 1994 territory now in this particular cycle.
Only in London. Outside London, you're in 1992 territory.
Which seats that Cameron gained from the LibDems are now 'in play' ?
Solihull ? Berwick ? Harrogate ? Colchester ? Hereford ? Montgomery ? Brecon ? All those in SW England ?
You keep conflating SW London with where the LibDems had MPs.
In reality the LibDems continue to do terribly in many areas of former strength.
Well Richmond obviously but also Cheltenham, South Cambs and Watford. Most the areas you mention were not voting yesterday. We will see how they do next year. The problem the Tories have is that, unlike 1992, they are already a minority government. It takes relatively few losses for them to lose power altogether.
Do you think this looks like an imminent LibDem gain ?
So that gives you Richmond (and there might be an unwinding of the byelection effect there) and Cheltenham.
And while the Conservatives need to be holding their 2017 seats they need to be regaining others they lost or winning new ones and it wasn't the metropolitan liberals of Stoke South, Mansfield and Walsall North who kept them in government. Or I suspect the metropolitan liberals of Moray, Angus and Banff.
St Ives will likely go yellow next time too
Maybe and maybe not.
There's a long list of seats which we were told would 'go yellow next time' and didn't.
Many LibDem gains have actually been surprises.
They did pretty well in St Ives in 2017. Iirc they were only about 300 votes short.
True although I wonder if Andrew George had a sizeable personal vote. He is 60 this year.
And there's been plenty of places where the LibDems have got close to winning one year, expected to win the next time, but faded away instead.
Comparing this round of elections (ie the London dominated elections) with those previously the number of councillors lost by the government were:
1978 -461 1982 -98 Falklands War reduces losses 1986 -975 1990 -222 1994 -516 1998 -88 Peak Blair popularity 2002 -334 2006 -319 2010 +417 GE on same day allows Labour to make gains 2010 -236 Con -310 LibDem 2014 -35
Labour gained 417 seats in 2010 and 324 in 2014. These 77 are on top of that. These are very good results, make no mistake. We are at 1994 territory now in this particular cycle.
Only in London. Outside London, you're in 1992 territory.
My figures are NOT about London only. I am looking at all the seats in this 4 year cycle [ which we voted on Thursday ]. The discussion is about that - not what happened in other years.
"They are really pushing for a £100 stake limit? Ridiculous!"
No, I think the plan was for a £30 limit (the current limit is £100, and £30 wouldn't change them too fundamentally). But MPs want to neuter the machines with a £2 limit instead.
I fail to see what value those machines have, apart from as a source of revenue for the bookmakers. A £2 limit is generous.
Everyone here in favour of the £2 limit (which I think is just about all of us) should write to their MP this weekend on the subject. If the denizens of a political gambling website can’t care about this issue, then no-one will except the industry lobbyists.
...
Surely the point was about stakes on theSE machines, not stakes generally.
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what a universally anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory media landscape we have (BBC in particular is shameful
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
...
The histrionics about the media doesn't she called the results mixed. Because they were mixed.
The results are mixed but the reason they are 'bad' for Labour is not media bias but because oppositions need breakthroughs - they need to show they're winning over the country and local elections can be a decent barometer of that. Given how awful the government is you'd expect Labour to be demolishing the Tories - but they are not, partially because Brexit has fixed a lot of people's politics a certain way, and partially because on awful lot of traditional Labour voters really can't vote for a man as morally unacceptable as Jeremy Corbyn.
Let's get away from perceptions and look at real facts:
Start with 1994. Labour having made 516 net gains
Labour net gains/ losses
1998 -88 2002 -334 2006 -319
Total Net Losses = 741
2010 +417 2014 +324 2018 +77
Total Net Gains = 818
So, Labour's position in this particular cycle at this moment is 77 better than it was after the 1994 landslide.
QED. [ By-elections excluded]
Over the course of 24 years, unitary councils have been created, and boundaries have been changed, so it's hard to make comparisons with elections that long ago. NEV is the best comparator.
"They are really pushing for a £100 stake limit? Ridiculous!"
No, I think the plan was for a £30 limit (the current limit is £100, and £30 wouldn't change them too fundamentally). But MPs want to neuter the machines with a £2 limit instead.
I fail to see what value those machines have, apart from as a source of revenue for the bookmakers. A £2 limit is generous.
Everyone here in favour of the £2 limit (which I think is just about all of us) should write to their MP this weekend on the subject. If the denizens of a political gambling website can’t care about this issue, then no-one will except the industry lobbyists.
...
Surely the point was about stakes on theSE machines, not stakes generally.
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what a universally anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory media landscape we have (BBC in particular is shameful given its supposed, though laughable, impartial status). Simple fact is that that Labour went forward and Tories backward from already high and low positions respectively.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
...
The histrionics about the media doesn't help, whoever does it. A top lady from momentum , I forget the name as it was around 5am, complained about the same yet even she called the results mixed. Because they were mixed.
The results are mixed but the reason they are 'bad' for Jeremy Corbyn.
Let's get away from perceptions and look at real facts:
Start with 1994. Labour having made 516 net gains
Labour net gains/ losses
1998 -88 2002 -334 2006 -319
Total Net Losses = 741
2010 +417 2014 +324 2018 +77
Total Net Gains = 818
So, Labour's position in this particular cycle at this moment is 77 better than it was after the 1994 landslide.
QED. [ By-elections excluded]
Labour got 40% in 1994 under John Smith, Corbyn got 35% so did clearly worse than Smith did.
May's 35% on Thursday though was 7% better than the 28% Major got in 1994
Comparing this round of elections (ie the London dominated elections) with those previously the number of councillors lost by the government were:
1978 -461 1982 -98 Falklands War reduces losses 1986 -975 1990 -222 1994 -516 1998 -88 Peak Blair popularity 2002 -334 2006 -319 2010 +417 GE on same day allows Labour to make gains 2010 -236 Con -310 LibDem 2014 -35
Labour gained 417 seats in 2010 and 324 in 2014. These 77 are on top of that. These are very good results, make no mistake. We are at 1994 territory now in this particular cycle.
The reason why Labour has a similar number of councillors is that nearly half of this round of elections is in London and London has shifted strongly towards Labour during the last generation.
This is counterbalanced by a pro Conservative shift in much of the rest of the country but which didn't vote this year.
London in all these years had a similar proportion of councillors. Also, London too has a rich harvest of seats. The Lib Dems are also aiming at the Tories.
The problem with this theory and I have seen cyclefree go down this left wing ideology equals anti semitic route, is just how many Jewish people there are involved. The Marx, Lenin and Trotsky trio for example all I understand are Jewish or have some Jewish heritage (happy to be corrected)
Marx was a raving anti-semite and wrote a whole book on the "Jewish Question".
Well I haven't read it, but I'm surprised that Marx could be a raving anti-semite and yet I've reached my late fifties and this is the first time I have ever heard that suggestion? It's not like Marx is someone who nobody has to an axe to grind with.
I thought Marx was Jewish. His father "converted" to Lutheranism to avoid persecution. But nowadays anybody can be labelled an anti semite.
Any idiot can label someone anything they like. The question is would reasonable people do so.
Some people love to say, for instance, that you cannot criticise Israel in any way without being labelled anti semitic. That is bollocks. I disagree with policies of the Israeli state for instance. Do idiots exist who will call any such criticism, any at all, antisemitic? Probably. But most do not, but anti semites exist who then pretend they are part of the innocent criticised by the idiots .
Many here do. Attacking the Israeli government brings all sorts of opprobrium.
Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
so tories made a net GAIN outside of London....that really is good for a government in power for 8 years.
Well done to TSE and David Herdson for their predictions. Sage Yorkshire-men.
Not wishing to blow my own trumpet (oh, go on then), the Conservatives had a net gain of four on Wakefield Council, which was near the top end of our hopes - we picked up all our target seats and came close in the two stretch target ones. It was clear that there must be opportunities in other similar places.
Morley & Outwood now has a Conservative councillor to go with its Conservative MP.
Yes. Quite a remarkable stat that Andrea didn't have a Conservative councillor in her constituency.
"They are really pushing for a £100 stake limit? Ridiculous!"
No, I think the plan was for a £30 limit (the current limit is £100, and £30 wouldn't change them too fundamentally). But MPs want to neuter the machines with a £2 limit instead.
I fail to see what value those machines have, apart from as a source of revenue for the bookmakers. A £2 limit is generous.
Everyone here in favour of the £2 limit (which I think is just about all of us) should write to their MP this weekend on the subject. If the denizens of a political gambling website can’t care about this issue, then no-one will except the industry lobbyists.
An element of "Do as we say, not as we do" perhaps? Unless we all actually do limit ourselves to £2 stakes.
Surely the point was about stakes on theSE machines, not stakes generally.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
The histrionics about the media doesn't help, whoever does it. A top lady from momentum , I forget the name as it was around 5am, complained about the same yet even she called the results mixed. Because they were mixed.
The results are mixed but the reason they are 'bad' for Labour is not media bias but because oppositions need breakthroughs - they need to show they're winning over the country and local elections can be a decent barometer of that. Given how awful the government is you'd expect Labour to be demolishing the Tories - but they are not, partially because Brexit has fixed a lot of people's politics a certain way, and partially because on awful lot of traditional Labour voters really can't vote for a man as morally unacceptable as Jeremy Corbyn.
All of this 'oppositions need breakthroughs' stuff is cobblers though. Firstly, we are talking about a government with no majority that is on the knife-edge of collapse at any given moment anyway. We are not talking about assailing the impregnable heights of a Blair or Thatcher. Secondly we already have precedent from last year. Fairly poor local elections then winning dozens of seats in the ensuing general election. By that yardstick this much better set of results bodes well by comparison.
Comparing this round of elections (ie the London dominated elections) with those previously the number of councillors lost by the government were:
1978 -461 1982 -98 Falklands War reduces losses 1986 -975 1990 -222 1994 -516 1998 -88 Peak Blair popularity 2002 -334 2006 -319 2010 +417 GE on same day allows Labour to make gains 2010 -236 Con -310 LibDem 2014 -35
Labour gained 417 seats in 2010 and 324 in 2014. These 77 are on top of that. These are very good results, make no mistake. We are at 1994 territory now in this particular cycle.
The reason why Labour has a similar number of councillors is that nearly half of this round of elections is in London and London has shifted strongly towards Labour during the last generation.
This is counterbalanced by a pro Conservative shift in much of the rest of the country but which didn't vote this year.
London in all these years had a similar proportion of councillors. Also, London too has a rich harvest of seats. The Lib Dems are also aiming at the Tories.
But while London has moved away from the Conservatives other parts of the country have moved towards them.
And the LibDems will also be aiming at Labour as well.
"They are really pushing for a £100 stake limit? Ridiculous!"
No, I think the plan was for a £30 limit (the current limit is £100, and £30 wouldn't change them too fundamentally). But MPs want to neuter the machines with a £2 limit instead.
I fail to see what value those machines have, apart from as a source of revenue for the bookmakers. A £2 limit is generous.
Everyone here in favour of the £2 limit (which I think is just about all of us) should write to their MP this weekend on the subject. If the denizens of a political gambling website can’t care about this issue, then no-one will except the industry lobbyists.
...
Surely the point was about stakes on theSE machines, not stakes generally.
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what a universally anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory media landscape we have (BBC in particular is shameful given its supposed, though laughable, impartial status). Simple fact is that that Labour went forward and Tories backward from already high and low positions respectively.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
...
The histrionics about the media doesn't help, whoever does it. A top lady from momentum , I forget the name as it was around 5am, complained about the same yet even she called the results mixed. Because they were mixed.
The results are mixed but the reason they are 'bad' for Jeremy Corbyn.
Let's get away from perceptions and look at real facts:
Start with 1994. Labour having made 516 net gains
Labour net gains/ losses
1998 -88 2002 -334 2006 -319
Total Net Losses = 741
2010 +417 2014 +324 2018 +77
Total Net Gains = 818
So, Labour's position in this particular cycle at this moment is 77 better than it was after the 1994 landslide.
QED. [ By-elections excluded]
Labour got 40% in 1994 under John Smith, Corbyn got 35% so did clearly worse than Smith did.
May's 35% on Thursday though was 7% better than the 28% Major got in 1994
One small detail you have missed out. So how come Labour did so much better in the actual number of councillors ? Have they been more efficient ?
David I suspect you are quoting Wilkepedia but Rallings & Thrasher have the 2011 NEV vote shares as Con 38 Lab 37 LD 16.
I was quoting Wikipedia, which is quoting the BBC's NEV - presumably John Curtis's figures. There is always an element of subjectivity around these projections on methodology, plus the statistical fluctuations that come with the choice of specific wards, if the figures are calculated that way.
Given that the Conservative made net gains in 2011 I think the 38/37 numbers are more likely than the 35/37.
Most of the Con gains were from the LDs though. I'm not sure you can read from gains/losses to absolute shares anyway - too much depends on the baseline, and 2007 was very good for the Tories (and very bad for Labour).
Yup. Lots of Europeans voted LD in SW London. The German school , for example, is in Richmond. The point about a anti-Tory unofficial alliance is valid. Where is another Charlie Kennedy ?
Where? Oxford West & Abingdon.
The Lib Dems' good showing at the locals means that Cable should be safe for another two years, at which point he'll be 77 and, I expect, want to stand down. And it's a lot easier to elect someone as leader when they've been an MP for three years; after just one year would be seen as a risk.
It's been notable over the past week that Layla Moran has been pushed front-and-centre in media appearances, second only to Cable. Jo Swinson has been nowhere to be seen. Perhaps not too surprising as these were English elections, but my sense is that Swinson's chances are receding, and I can't cry any tears over that: she doesn't connect with people in the way Moran does.
Comparing this round of elections (ie the London dominated elections) with those previously the number of councillors lost by the government were:
1978 -461 1982 -98 Falklands War reduces losses 1986 -975 1990 -222 1994 -516 1998 -88 Peak Blair popularity 2002 -334 2006 -319 2010 +417 GE on same day allows Labour to make gains 2010 -236 Con -310 LibDem 2014 -35
Labour gained 417 seats in 2010 and 324 in 2014. These 77 are on top of that. These are very good results, make no mistake. We are at 1994 territory now in this particular cycle.
The reason why Labour has a similar number of councillors is that nearly half of this round of elections is in London and London has shifted strongly towards Labour during the last generation.
This is counterbalanced by a pro Conservative shift in much of the rest of the country but which didn't vote this year.
London in all these years had a similar proportion of councillors. Also, London too has a rich harvest of seats. The Lib Dems are also aiming at the Tories.
But while London has moved away from the Conservatives other parts of the country have moved towards them.
And the LibDems will also be aiming at Labour as well.
"And the LibDems will also be aiming at Labour as well"
It's a bit too early for jokes ! How many Labour seats are there in the Lib Dem top 50 targets ?
"They are really pushing for a £100 stake limit? Ridiculous!"
No, I think the plan was for a £30 limit (the current limit is £100, and £30 wouldn't change them too fundamentally). But MPs want to neuter the machines with a £2 limit instead.
I fail to see what value those machines have, apart from as a source of revenue for the bookmakers. A £2 limit is generous.
Everyone here in favour of the £2 limit (which I stry lobbyists.
...
Surely the point was about stakes on theSE machines, not stakes generally.
Yes, the fact that the lready high and low positions respectively.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
...
The histrionics about the media doesn't help, whoever does it. A top lady from momentum , I forget the name as it was around 5am, complained about the same yet even she called the results mixed. Because they were mixed.
The results are mixed but the reason they are 'bad' for Jeremy Corbyn.
Let's get away from perceptions and look at real facts:
Start with 1994. Labour having made 516 net gains
Labour net gains/ losses
1998 -88 2002 -334 2006 -319
Total Net Losses = 741
2010 +417 2014 +324 2018 +77
Total Net Gains = 818
So, Labour's position in this particular cycle at this moment is 77 better than it was after the 1994 landslide.
QED. [ By-elections excluded]
Labour got 40% in 1994 under John Smith, Corbyn got 35% so did clearly worse than Smith did.
May's 35% on Thursday though was 7% better than the 28% Major got in 1994
One small detail you have missed out. So how come Labour did so much better in the actual number of councillors ? Have they been more efficient ?
They simply piled them on in London making Labour seats even more safe while in marginal seats in the Midlands like Nuneaton and Walsall the Tories made net gains so if anything the reverse.
In terms of aiming for an overall majority at the next general election this was a poor result for Corbyn, only Plymouth saw them make a net gain of a council with a Tory marginal seat
Taking into account the seat reduction in Bexley, the scores in London were Con -89, Lab +57, Lib Dem + 35, Green + 7, UKIP -12.
so tories made a net GAIN outside of London....that really is good for a government in power for 8 years.
Well done to TSE and David Herdson for their predictions. Sage Yorkshire-men.
Not wishing to blow my own trumpet (oh, go on then), the Conservatives had a net gain of four on Wakefield Council, which was near the top end of our hopes - we picked up all our target seats and came close in the two stretch target ones. It was clear that there must be opportunities in other similar places.
Morley & Outwood now has a Conservative councillor to go with its Conservative MP.
Wow. Ed Balls lost a seat where there were no Tory Cllrs?
Yup. Lots of Europeans voted LD in SW London. The German school , for example, is in Richmond. The point about a anti-Tory unofficial alliance is valid. Where is another Charlie Kennedy ?
Where? Oxford West & Abingdon.
The Lib Dems' good showing at the locals means that Cable should be safe for another two years, at which point he'll be 77 and, I expect, want to stand down. And it's a lot easier to elect someone as leader when they've been an MP for three years; after just one year would be seen as a risk.
It's been notable over the past week that Layla Moran has been pushed front-and-centre in media appearances, second only to Cable. Jo Swinson has been nowhere to be seen. Perhaps not too surprising as these were English elections, but my sense is that Swinson's chances are receding, and I can't cry any tears over that: she doesn't connect with people in the way Moran does.
Yup. Lots of Europeans voted LD in SW London. The German school , for example, is in Richmond. The point about a anti-Tory unofficial alliance is valid. Where is another Charlie Kennedy ?
Where? Oxford West & Abingdon.
The Lib Dems' good showing at the locals means that Cable should be safe for another two years, at which point he'll be 77 and, I expect, want to stand down. And it's a lot easier to elect someone as leader when they've been an MP for three years; after just one year would be seen as a risk.
It's been notable over the past week that Layla Moran has been pushed front-and-centre in media appearances, second only to Cable. Jo Swinson has been nowhere to be seen. Perhaps not too surprising as these were English elections, but my sense is that Swinson's chances are receding, and I can't cry any tears over that: she doesn't connect with people in the way Moran does.
The LDs couldn't field a full set of candidates in Oxford this week. Including wards in OXWAB. If Moran wants the leadership she needs to secure her own base. That means putting in the work in her constituency.
"They are really pushing for a £100 stake limit? Ridiculous!"
No, I think the plan was for a £30 limit (the current limit is £100, and £30 wouldn't change them too fundamentally). But MPs want to neuter the machines with a £2 limit instead.
I fail to see what value those machines have, apart from as a source of revenue for the bookmakers. A £2 limit is generous.
Everyone here in favour of the £2 limit (which I think is just about all of us) should write to their MP this weekend on the subject. If the denizens of a political gambling website can’t care about this issue, then no-one will except the industry lobbyists.
...
Surely the point was about stakes on theSE machines, not stakes generally.
Yes, the fact that the media are spinning it as bad for Labour just shows starkly what
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
...
The histrionics about the media doesn't help, whoever does it. A top lady from momentum , I forget the name as it was around 5am, complained about the same yet even she called the results mixed. Because they were mixed.
The results are mixed but the reason they are 'bad' for Jeremy Corbyn.
Let's get away from perceptions and look at real facts:
Start with 1994. Labour having made 516 net gains
Labour net gains/ losses
1998 -88 2002 -334 2006 -319
Total Net Losses = 741
2010 +417 2014 +324 2018 +77
Total Net Gains = 818
So, Labour's position in this particular cycle at this moment is 77 better than it was after the 1994 landslide.
QED. [ By-elections excluded]
Labour got 40% in 1994 under John Smith, Corbyn got 35% so did clearly worse than Smith did.
May's 35% on Thursday though was 7% better than the 28% Major got in 1994
One small detail you have missed out. So how come Labour did so much better in the actual number of councillors ? Have they been more efficient ?
Back in 1994, London voted much the same way as the rest of England. 24 years on, London has shifted strongly towards Labour and the rest of England has shifted towards the Conservatives.
Comments
In Merton there was an unexpected swing to the Tories in two or three wards in the Wimbledon Park area.
The Tories did badly in Redbridge, losing 14 seats but that borough mainly incorporates Ilford North and Ilford South which the Tories would now need a landslide majority of over 100 seats to regain from Labour
I think you know this full well and are actively shilling for your leader. Given you did the same thing for Blair's war in Iraq, you are clearly just a shill with no principles that will argue for the Labour leadership no matter how disgraceful.
There's a long list of seats which we were told would 'go yellow next time' and didn't.
Many LibDem gains have actually been surprises.
Interesting to consider age, though, as that is a demographic, you can't alter it, but unlike other such factors it, necessarily, changes.
Perhaps we're lower here because many seats are so one-sided?
1978 -461
1982 -98 Falklands War reduces losses
1986 -975
1990 -222
1994 -516
1998 -88 Peak Blair popularity
2002 -334
2006 -319
2010 +417 GE on same day allows Labour to make gains
2010 -236 Con -310 LibDem
2014 -35
Whether one agrees with "identity politics" or not largely depends on whether you are in the "in group" or in the "out group", of the particular identity under discussion.
I identify as "identity fluid"
However you spin it it wasn't a 'great' result. Rather, there are too many people over spinning it the other way as a cataclysmic one.
Labour won the biggest net increase in councillors of any party. The Conservatives suffered a net loss of both councils and councillors, second only to UKIP in the loser stakes.
I see Tories everywhere, from the media to the party to its fellow travellers on the Labour backbenchers, have yet again learnt nothing.
https://twitter.com/JoClarke7/status/992641693492109312
What it showed is that Labour remains strong where the Corbyn voting blocks are concentrated but has increasing weaknesses in some other places and is making little progress overall.
Nor, if course, is that the tories will learn a lesson and do better. I happen to think Corbyn will win next time . But there's a line between confidence and over confidence. On Thursday labour crossed it, the question is if they will again.
https://twitter.com/ExcelPope/status/992639988012548096
But nowadays anybody can be labelled "anti-Semite".
If you want a homeland for the Palestinians, you are an anti-Semite. Like Ed Miliband, Marion Kozak.
I suspect you are quoting Wilkepedia but Rallings & Thrasher have the 2011 NEV vote shares as Con 38 Lab 37 LD 16.
I’m not laying Gove, IMO he’s the Theresa-under-a-bus-over-Brexit candidate for the next 10 months.
Two issues which were exacerbated by Cameron and Osborne (despite all that 'reaching out to metropolitan liberals').
https://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-labour-local-elections-power-quest-off-course/
Worth a read anyway.
The histrionics about the media doesn't help, whoever does it. A top lady from momentum , I forget the name as it was around 5am, complained about the same yet even she called the results mixed. Because they were mixed.
http://www.philosophersmag.com/opinion/30-karl-marx-s-radical-antisemitism
‘Clear and unambiguous’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_1994
The reason why Labour has a similar number of councillors is that nearly half of this round of elections is in London and London has shifted strongly towards Labour during the last generation.
This is counterbalanced by a pro Conservative shift in much of the rest of the country but which didn't vote this year.
IDS would comfortably hold his seat on Thursday's swing
Oh wait, those things are actually true!
Some people love to say, for instance, that you cannot criticise Israel in any way without being labelled anti semitic. That is bollocks. I disagree with policies of the Israeli state for instance. Do idiots exist who will call any such criticism, any at all, antisemitic? Probably. But most do not, but anti semites exist who then pretend they are part of the innocent criticised by the idiots .
Start with 1994. Labour having made 516 net gains
Labour net gains/ losses
1998 -88
2002 -334
2006 -319
Total Net Losses = 741
2010 +417
2014 +324
2018 +77
Total Net Gains = 818
So, Labour's position in this particular cycle at this moment is 77 better than it was after the 1994 landslide.
QED. [ By-elections excluded]
I think it's a case of Labour not doing quite as well as they should be doing in the circumstances (8 years into an unpopular Tory government) but I agree the media and Blairites are being a tad hysterical with the "disaster for Labour" rhetroric.
And there's been plenty of places where the LibDems have got close to winning one year, expected to win the next time, but faded away instead.
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/992522614135513088
May's 35% on Thursday though was 7% better than the 28% Major got in 1994
https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/992711308570234880
And the LibDems will also be aiming at Labour as well.
The Lib Dems' good showing at the locals means that Cable should be safe for another two years, at which point he'll be 77 and, I expect, want to stand down. And it's a lot easier to elect someone as leader when they've been an MP for three years; after just one year would be seen as a risk.
It's been notable over the past week that Layla Moran has been pushed front-and-centre in media appearances, second only to Cable. Jo Swinson has been nowhere to be seen. Perhaps not too surprising as these were English elections, but my sense is that Swinson's chances are receding, and I can't cry any tears over that: she doesn't connect with people in the way Moran does.
It's a bit too early for jokes ! How many Labour seats are there in the Lib Dem top 50 targets ?
In terms of aiming for an overall majority at the next general election this was a poor result for Corbyn, only Plymouth saw them make a net gain of a council with a Tory marginal seat
She really is not present round here.