Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The locals – how the forecasters did
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The locals – how the forecasters did
The above table was produced by Oxford Professor, Stephen Fisher, and published on his site on the day before the locals. Now we know the results it’s very useful to see how conventional forecasting methods compared against what actually happened and is a good reference for the future.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
They did much worse than expectations, much much worse.
https://twitter.com/IainMcGill/status/1124597032411332608
But there also comes a point at which endless compromise means the game isn't worth the candle. Giving foreign nations preferential access to our markets which is not reciprocated, whilst a foreign organisation dictates said trade policy, is bloody ridiculous.
For example, in 1995, we had the Tories losing 2000 councillors in a cycle that hit their heartlands like today, with the Lib Dems picking up 487 and Labour 1800.
But the number of councillors has changed, with councils amalgamated (into unitaries), or cut up, and with the number of councillors per council changed (for example, when the Lib Dems took Vale of White Horse in 1995, there were 51 councillors on the council; the same council today has 38 councillors). In addition, Wales had local elections at this point in the cycle then; they don't now.
I found a Parliamentary Research Paper from 1995 which stated there were 12,153 councillors elected that day. Up until just now, on the BBC website, there have been 8,410 councillors elected (and the mainland count seems complete). The sort of regions contested (primarily rural), though, looks comparable.
Scale-wise, then, a loss of 1334 councillors of 8410 contested looks only a little less bad than a loss of 2018 councillors out of 12,153 places contested. A gain of 703 against a backdrop of 8,410 contests looks a lot better than a gain of 487 out of a backdrop of 12,153 contested (albeit from a significantly lower starting point).
No matter how you spin it, though, a loss of 82 out of 8,410 is a hell of a lot worse than a gain of 1,807 out of 12,153.
> To be fair Corbyn and his supporters Jez lost nearly 400 councillors in May 2017 then a few weeks later he came *this* close to ousting Mrs May from Downing Street.
Only because many LD county council voters voted Labour at the general election (including even OGH I believe).
They will not do that again unless Corbyn commits to EUref2
> FPT: Mr. kle4, there remains, ahem, a credible possibility of remaining.
>
> But there also comes a point at which endless compromise means the game isn't worth the candle. Giving foreign nations preferential access to our markets which is not reciprocated, whilst a foreign organisation dictates said trade policy, is bloody ridiculous.
>
> Well this is what happens because Leavers lied to the country about how easy Brexit would be.
The WA meets all the promises.
But it doesn't suit the purposes of many Conservative MPs.
> > @TheScreamingEagles said:
>
> > https://twitter.com/MPritchardUK/status/1124596567430840320
>
>
>
>
>
> On last night's results it will only be PM Corbyn if he gets LD support
>
> Which despite their protests why would they not, if the alternative was another election or Tory control. Many lds seem very happy to work with the greens in theory, so an arrangement with Corbyn seems pretty easy for the right price.
Possibly but the best possible way to revive Tory fortunes electorally would be for PM Corbyn propped up by the LDs and SNP with the Tories having opposition largely to themselves under Boris and Davidson hammering the Corbyn and Sturgeon pact in Scotland
> This was a truly terrible night for the Labour party.
>
> They did much worse than expectations, much much worse.
This is true, but questions need to be asked about the projections, given what we already knew about the problems the two main parties are having. Also, the consequences locally were considerably worse for the Tories. And, at least for the time being, Labour's prospects nationally still look better than the Tories'.
On the issue of the UK locals as ISAM pointed out in the last thread the big gainers after the LDs were independents of various kinds. We need to know there position on Brexit before assuming yesterday was a big 'Remain' vote - and I wonder how many LDs in the SW made Brexit their key doorstep issue.
> FPT: Mr. kle4, there remains, ahem, a credible possibility of remaining.
>
> But there also comes a point at which endless compromise means the game isn't worth the candle. Giving foreign nations preferential access to our markets which is not reciprocated, whilst a foreign organisation dictates said trade policy, is bloody ridiculous.
>
> And that’s just the forthcoming trade negotiations with the US....
I think MD is a bigger fan of Liam Fox than Adam Werritty ever was.
Waverley, where I live (Hunt's constituency) now has 23 Con, 14 LD, 2 Lab, 2 Green and 15 left-leaning Residents. A lot of the Lib/Lab votes are tactical, both ways, and there is a clear sense of common purpose here among the non-Tory activists, which is a product of years of monolithic Tory domination. Activists were really fired up this time - my Labour friends say they've never seen such enthusiasm in their entire life in the constituency, and the Libdems and Greens were absolutely buzzing too. I gather that's not exactly how people feel in, say, Sunderland, so it's perhaps a mistake to generalise too much either way.
That is interesting, and might go some way to explaining why Labour is rather perversely taking the message from the electorate as ‘get on with Brexit’.
> Early NI locals suggest the DUP is losing seats.
>
> On the issue of the UK locals as ISAM pointed out in the last thread the big gainers after the LDs were independents of various kinds. We need to know there position on Brexit before assuming yesterday was a big 'Remain' vote - and I wonder how many LDs in the SW made Brexit their key doorstep issue.
The standard line of Independents is that the political parties are all crap and they will focus on local issues.
Local issues being more / cheaper housing to young people and less / more expensive housing to old people or building more roads / opposing more roads as appropriate.
> I was discussing on Twitter with Hurst Llama (who used to post here regularly) why Labour did well in the South and badly in the North. We've seen in the poll cross-tabs that the relationship between socio-economic group and party preference has almost vanished, and I wonder if the regional gulf - Tory South, Labour North - is now starting to follow.
>
> Waverley, where I live (Hunt's constituency) now has 23 Con, 14 LD, 2 Lab, 2 Green and 15 left-leaning Residents. A lot of the Lib/Lab votes are tactical, both ways, and there is a clear sense of common purpose here among the non-Tory activists, which is a product of years of monolithic Tory domination. Activists were really fired up this time - my Labour friends say they've never seen such enthusiasm in their entire life in the constituency, and the Libdems and Greens were absolutely buzzing too. I gather that's not exactly how people feel in, say, Sunderland, so it's perhaps a mistake to generalise too much either way.
Well done Nick on your election. Looking at the result you benefited from 1 LD and looking at the numbers it looks like if they had put up 2 candidates they may have made it 2 at your expense. Was there a deal or was it chance that you were both only able to put up 1 candidate each so it fell nicely for you both that vote splitting wasn't available.
As you know from previous chats I used to have quite a bit of knowledge on the goings on in SW Surrey (I can't explain why without giving away my identity), but that is very old knowledge now.
> FPT: Mr. kle4, there remains, ahem, a credible possibility of remaining.
>
> But there also comes a point at which endless compromise means the game isn't worth the candle. Giving foreign nations preferential access to our markets which is not reciprocated, whilst a foreign organisation dictates said trade policy, is bloody ridiculous.
>
> Well this is what happens because Leavers lied to the country about how easy Brexit would be.
The reason leaving has been hard, though, isn't that it's hard to do a deal with the EU. The EU - as you would expect them to - try to drive a hard bargain, but ultimately they much prefer deal to no deal. A deal is available, and involves giving up some of the benefits of the EU in return of relieving ourselves of some of its disbenefits.
The real reason leaving is proving hard is that there is no consensus in the UK of which benefits and which disbenefits we would like to give up, and little willingness to find such a consensus.
In general, we need to be more willing in this country to seek outcomes with broad bases of support.
> > @kle4 said:
> > > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> >
> > > https://twitter.com/MPritchardUK/status/1124596567430840320
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On last night's results it will only be PM Corbyn if he gets LD support
> >
> > Which despite their protests why would they not, if the alternative was another election or Tory control. Many lds seem very happy to work with the greens in theory, so an arrangement with Corbyn seems pretty easy for the right price.
>
> Possibly but the best possible way to revive Tory fortunes electorally would be for PM Corbyn propped up by the LDs and SNP with the Tories having opposition largely to themselves under Boris and Davidson hammering the Corbyn and Sturgeon pact in Scotland
This idea that ''' Corbyn will be so bad we'll be back with a landslide in no time" is really dangerous. Corbyn and his followers will not give up power lightly. There will be votes at 16, manipulation of boundaries, a blind eye turned to all kinds of voting irregularities, demographic changes that will favour Labour... And in the meantime everything Tories hold dear - private education, the army, Parliament, tradition, monarchy - will be irreversibly undermined or dismantled. If these Berks allow a Corbyn government they will regret it forever.
> I was discussing on Twitter with Hurst Llama (who used to post here regularly) why Labour did well in the South and badly in the North. We've seen in the poll cross-tabs that the relationship between socio-economic group and party preference has almost vanished, and I wonder if the regional gulf - Tory South, Labour North - is now starting to follow.
>
> Waverley, where I live (Hunt's constituency) now has 23 Con, 14 LD, 2 Lab, 2 Green and 15 left-leaning Residents. A lot of the Lib/Lab votes are tactical, both ways, and there is a clear sense of common purpose here among the non-Tory activists, which is a product of years of monolithic Tory domination. Activists were really fired up this time - my Labour friends say they've never seen such enthusiasm in their entire life in the constituency, and the Libdems and Greens were absolutely buzzing too. I gather that's not exactly how people feel in, say, Sunderland, so it's perhaps a mistake to generalise too much either way.
Congrats Nick.
Any chance you can get a good position in the cabinet or committees ?
> > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> > FPT: Mr. kle4, there remains, ahem, a credible possibility of remaining.
> >
> > But there also comes a point at which endless compromise means the game isn't worth the candle. Giving foreign nations preferential access to our markets which is not reciprocated, whilst a foreign organisation dictates said trade policy, is bloody ridiculous.
> >
> > Well this is what happens because Leavers lied to the country about how easy Brexit would be.
>
> The reason leaving has been hard, though, isn't that it's hard to do a deal with the EU. The EU - as you would expect them to - try to drive a hard bargain, but ultimately they much prefer deal to no deal. A deal is available, and involves giving up some of the benefits of the EU in return of relieving ourselves of some of its disbenefits.
> The real reason leaving is proving hard is that there is no consensus in the UK of which benefits and which disbenefits we would like to give up, and little willingness to find such a consensus.
>
> In general, we need to be more willing in this country to seek outcomes with broad bases of support.
The problem being that our political and media systems give encouragement to the ever more fanatical and extreme.
It's why, even now, I'm still nailed on to vote Conservative at the next General Election if the wretched Corbyn or someone of his ilk is squatting on the Labour front bench.
> > @felix said:
> > Early NI locals suggest the DUP is losing seats.
> >
> > On the issue of the UK locals as ISAM pointed out in the last thread the big gainers after the LDs were independents of various kinds. We need to know there position on Brexit before assuming yesterday was a big 'Remain' vote - and I wonder how many LDs in the SW made Brexit their key doorstep issue.
>
> The standard line of Independents is that the political parties are all crap and they will focus on local issues.
>
> Local issues being more / cheaper housing to young people and less / more expensive housing to old people or building more roads / opposing more roads as appropriate.
The LE independents are surely a mixed bunch, varying from former kippers repelled by the repulsive Battern, to individuals with their own hobby horses. There are none on my council, but on my parents council are this group of 7, who are explicitly not interested in national issues. In general their manifesto is pretty centre left:
https://www.andoveralliance.co.uk/#
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1b70ce1trk/TheTimes_190430_EuropeVI_Trackers_w.pdf?goal=0_494ca252da-96e8f0184e-312615349
Con 13% Lab 21%, LD 10%, Green 9%, Brexit 30%, CHUK 9%
It will probably change following yesterday's results, but for what it's worth, putting the regional figures (small samples) through my D'Hondt model, gives the following result in seats.
Con 9, Lab 19, LD 6, Green 4, Brex 28, CHUK 2, SNP 2
> Our new councillor has been congratulated by his head teacher on twitter; I'll have to wish him luck in his A-levels.
If he's planning on going to university it will be a bit difficult to stay as a councillor.
Did he have any particular youth enhanced policies ?
> Only one thing worse than that Labour performance. This.
>
> https://twitter.com/IainMcGill/status/1124597032411332608
Those are worse than the Tory performance.
Mid you, if they're £449 from Versace rather than (as I suspect) £14.99 from TK Maxx, TSE will snap them up.
And as a plus, they elected a lot of nice sensible grown up Lib Dems who have been working their socks off while routinely ignored by the media and dismissed as dead and buried by Labour and the Tories. Well, it turns out the parrot was only resting after all.
The Lib Dems , in the absence of CUK, offered a fairly straightforward choice of where to place a proxy Remain vote on Thursday. The absence of the BP offered leavers no similar option to Leavers.
The number of gains by independents however, virtually mirrored those by the Lib Dems. That suggests an equally large rejection of all the traditional options promising continuity Remain or Brexit inertia.
They are way too narrow for my wide feet.
Though I do have a suit they’d go well with.
However, if he can keep going at 28-30%, then maintain parliamentary gridlock on Brexit to split the Tory vote three different ways he does have a plausible route to victory from here.
The local election results would be very different had the Brexit and Change parties run, an educated guess would be Tories and Libdems worse but Labour around the same.
> I'm also finding it hard to compare directly with bad results in the past.
> For example, in 1995, we had the Tories losing 2000 councillors in a cycle that hit their heartlands like today, with the Lib Dems picking up 487 and Labour 1800.
>
> But the number of councillors has changed, with councils amalgamated (into unitaries), or cut up, and with the number of councillors per council changed (for example, when the Lib Dems took Vale of White Horse in 1995, there were 51 councillors on the council; the same council today has 38 councillors). In addition, Wales had local elections at this point in the cycle then; they don't now.
>
> I found a Parliamentary Research Paper from 1995 which stated there were 12,153 councillors elected that day. Up until just now, on the BBC website, there have been 8,410 councillors elected (and the mainland count seems complete). The sort of regions contested (primarily rural), though, looks comparable.
>
> Scale-wise, then, a loss of 1334 councillors of 8410 contested looks only a little less bad than a loss of 2018 councillors out of 12,153 places contested. A gain of 703 against a backdrop of 8,410 contests looks a lot better than a gain of 487 out of a backdrop of 12,153 contested (albeit from a significantly lower starting point).
>
> No matter how you spin it, though, a loss of 82 out of 8,410 is a hell of a lot worse than a gain of 1,807 out of 12,153.
2,000 of the seats were Scottish and Welsh in 1995. The Conservative losses were also on top of 1,000 losses in the previous cycle, in 1991, rather than coming from a high point. The Conservatives were left with 13 councils.
> Congrats Nick.
>
> Any chance you can get a good position in the cabinet or committees ?
Thanks! Too early to say, but I think it's a better chance with no overall control.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @felix said:
> > > Early NI locals suggest the DUP is losing seats.
> > >
> > > On the issue of the UK locals as ISAM pointed out in the last thread the big gainers after the LDs were independents of various kinds. We need to know there position on Brexit before assuming yesterday was a big 'Remain' vote - and I wonder how many LDs in the SW made Brexit their key doorstep issue.
> >
> > The standard line of Independents is that the political parties are all crap and they will focus on local issues.
> >
> > Local issues being more / cheaper housing to young people and less / more expensive housing to old people or building more roads / opposing more roads as appropriate.
>
> The LE independents are surely a mixed bunch, varying from former kippers repelled by the repulsive Battern, to individuals with their own hobby horses. There are none on my council, but on my parents council are this group of 7, who are explicitly not interested in national issues. In general their manifesto is pretty centre left:
>
> https://www.andoveralliance.co.uk/#
I wouldn't describe that as centre left more as feel good middle class populism.
All very worthwhile but ask people to pay more taxes to fund it and ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c4e713newp7t/peterborough-council
> Well done Nick on your election. Looking at the result you benefited from 1 LD and looking at the numbers it looks like if they had put up 2 candidates they may have made it 2 at your expense. Was there a deal or was it chance that you were both only able to put up 1 candidate each so it fell nicely for you both that vote splitting wasn't available.
>
> As you know from previous chats I used to have quite a bit of knowledge on the goings on in SW Surrey (I can't explain why without giving away my identity), but that is very old knowledge now.
Appearances are somewhat misleading here, and if LD and Lab had both put up two candidates in my ward I think the Tories would have held on. I'm also a little constrained in what I can say, but just factually, when we both put up full slates we both lost all over the borough, and now we didn't we've won seats all over the borough. Green cooperation has been crucial too, and suitably rewarded.
There have been some intelligent minds at work to make this happen. In my ward, Labour did 100% of the non-Tory canvassing and knockup, and we cheerfully encouraged people who were going to vote LibDem to go and vote, partly because we reckoned that half of them would give us a vote too, as indeed they did. In some other wards, the LibDems did 100% of the canvass and knockup, and Labour has won some seats at Borough and Town level which we mnight not have done otherwise.
Kudos to whoever it was on here predicting 100 Labour losses.
They were shot down ISTR?
> > @Foxy said:
>
> > > @another_richard said:
>
> > > > @felix said:
>
> > > > Early NI locals suggest the DUP is losing seats.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > On the issue of the UK locals as ISAM pointed out in the last thread the big gainers after the LDs were independents of various kinds. We need to know there position on Brexit before assuming yesterday was a big 'Remain' vote - and I wonder how many LDs in the SW made Brexit their key doorstep issue.
>
> > >
>
> > > The standard line of Independents is that the political parties are all crap and they will focus on local issues.
>
> > >
>
> > > Local issues being more / cheaper housing to young people and less / more expensive housing to old people or building more roads / opposing more roads as appropriate.
>
> >
>
> > The LE independents are surely a mixed bunch, varying from former kippers repelled by the repulsive Battern, to individuals with their own hobby horses. There are none on my council, but on my parents council are this group of 7, who are explicitly not interested in national issues. In general their manifesto is pretty centre left:
>
> >
>
> > https://www.andoveralliance.co.uk/#
>
>
>
> I wouldn't describe that as centre left more as feel good middle class populism.
>
>
>
> All very worthwhile but ask people to pay more taxes to fund it and ...
>
> .... they are quite prepared to do so.
In which case all they need to do is go to the local town hall finance department with their cheque book.
I've pointed that out to many people over the years and even offered to drive them to the local town hall / hospital / tax office so that they can make the extra payment they say they are willing to do.
Nobody has ever accepted the offer.
Although how anyone could doubt that after the last 15 years I don't know.
> > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> > This was a truly terrible night for the Labour party.
> >
> > They did much worse than expectations, much much worse.
>
> This is true, but questions need to be asked about the projections, given what we already knew about the problems the two main parties are having. Also, the consequences locally were considerably worse for the Tories. And, at least for the time being, Labour's prospects nationally still look better than the Tories'.
This is what an election result looks like when a lot of voters really, really don't like any of the parties - the main two especially
> > @Andy_Cooke said:
> > I'm also finding it hard to compare directly with bad results in the past.
> > For example, in 1995, we had the Tories losing 2000 councillors in a cycle that hit their heartlands like today, with the Lib Dems picking up 487 and Labour 1800.
> >
> > But the number of councillors has changed, with councils amalgamated (into unitaries), or cut up, and with the number of councillors per council changed (for example, when the Lib Dems took Vale of White Horse in 1995, there were 51 councillors on the council; the same council today has 38 councillors). In addition, Wales had local elections at this point in the cycle then; they don't now.
> >
> > I found a Parliamentary Research Paper from 1995 which stated there were 12,153 councillors elected that day. Up until just now, on the BBC website, there have been 8,410 councillors elected (and the mainland count seems complete). The sort of regions contested (primarily rural), though, looks comparable.
> >
> > Scale-wise, then, a loss of 1334 councillors of 8410 contested looks only a little less bad than a loss of 2018 councillors out of 12,153 places contested. A gain of 703 against a backdrop of 8,410 contests looks a lot better than a gain of 487 out of a backdrop of 12,153 contested (albeit from a significantly lower starting point).
> >
> > No matter how you spin it, though, a loss of 82 out of 8,410 is a hell of a lot worse than a gain of 1,807 out of 12,153.
>
> 2,000 of the seats were Scottish and Welsh in 1995. The Conservative losses were also on top of 1,000 losses in the previous cycle, in 1991, rather than coming from a high point. The Conservatives were left with 13 councils.
Of those 13 surviving Conservative councils some didn't have elections that year - 4 or 5 in London for example.
As you say 2019 from 2015 was the equivalent of 1991 from 1987.
The equivalent of 1995 would be the Conservatives losing another 2000 councillors.
> In which case all they need to do is go to the local town hall finance department with their cheque book.
>
> I've pointed that out to many people over the years and even offered to drive them to the local town hall / hospital / tax office so that they can make the extra payment they say they are willing to do.
>
> Nobody has ever accepted the offer.
If you don't understand this behaviour you could maybe start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
> Maybe we need better political scientists? Their record of predictions have been poor over a number of cycles.
> Kudos to whoever it was on here predicting 100 Labour losses.
> They were shot down ISTR?
The methods are sound for past circumstances. They are struggling with the complexities of our fragmented public opinion
> > @NickPalmer said:
> > I was discussing on Twitter with Hurst Llama (who used to post here regularly) why Labour did well in the South and badly in the North. We've seen in the poll cross-tabs that the relationship between socio-economic group and party preference has almost vanished, and I wonder if the regional gulf - Tory South, Labour North - is now starting to follow.
> >
> > Waverley, where I live (Hunt's constituency) now has 23 Con, 14 LD, 2 Lab, 2 Green and 15 left-leaning Residents. A lot of the Lib/Lab votes are tactical, both ways, and there is a clear sense of common purpose here among the non-Tory activists, which is a product of years of monolithic Tory domination. Activists were really fired up this time - my Labour friends say they've never seen such enthusiasm in their entire life in the constituency, and the Libdems and Greens were absolutely buzzing too. I gather that's not exactly how people feel in, say, Sunderland, so it's perhaps a mistake to generalise too much either way.
>
> Congrats Nick.
>
> Any chance you can get a good position in the cabinet or committees ?
Waverley uses the Strong Leader model so there must surely be a good chance that Nick joins the Cabinet in any coalition. If only that had happened in his Broxtowe days.....
> > @kjh said:
>
> > Well done Nick on your election. Looking at the result you benefited from 1 LD and looking at the numbers it looks like if they had put up 2 candidates they may have made it 2 at your expense. Was there a deal or was it chance that you were both only able to put up 1 candidate each so it fell nicely for you both that vote splitting wasn't available.
> >
> > As you know from previous chats I used to have quite a bit of knowledge on the goings on in SW Surrey (I can't explain why without giving away my identity), but that is very old knowledge now.
>
> Appearances are somewhat misleading here, and if LD and Lab had both put up two candidates in my ward I think the Tories would have held on. I'm also a little constrained in what I can say, but just factually, when we both put up full slates we both lost all over the borough, and now we didn't we've won seats all over the borough. Green cooperation has been crucial too, and suitably rewarded.
>
> There have been some intelligent minds at work to make this happen. In my ward, Labour did 100% of the non-Tory canvassing and knockup, and we cheerfully encouraged people who were going to vote LibDem to go and vote, partly because we reckoned that half of them would give us a vote too, as indeed they did. In some other wards, the LibDems did 100% of the canvass and knockup, and Labour has won some seats at Borough and Town level which we mnight not have done otherwise.
Congratulations on your success Nick. Godalming strikes me as as an archetypal Tory town, so quite a result.
However, on the flip side look at the places where we have lost seats and lost councils. Labour towns, where you expect them to weigh our vote, electing all colours of the rainbow.
Our party has lost sight of its purpose, who it was established to represent and what really matters in the day-to-day lives of ordinary people.
We need to recapture our purpose before it is too late. And that can only happen with a new leader, and the right leader who can reconnect with working class voters.
> Welcome back MrsBthe idiotic pompous ignorant bombastic narcissistic numpties
>
> I'll put you down as a 'maybe...'
the main numpty I was thinking of were Mark Francois if that helps......
> > @kjh said:
>
> > Well done Nick on your election. Looking at the result you benefited from 1 LD and looking at the numbers it looks like if they had put up 2 candidates they may have made it 2 at your expense. Was there a deal or was it chance that you were both only able to put up 1 candidate each so it fell nicely for you both that vote splitting wasn't available.
> >
> > As you know from previous chats I used to have quite a bit of knowledge on the goings on in SW Surrey (I can't explain why without giving away my identity), but that is very old knowledge now.
>
> Appearances are somewhat misleading here, and if LD and Lab had both put up two candidates in my ward I think the Tories would have held on. I'm also a little constrained in what I can say, but just factually, when we both put up full slates we both lost all over the borough, and now we didn't we've won seats all over the borough. Green cooperation has been crucial too, and suitably rewarded.
>
> There have been some intelligent minds at work to make this happen. In my ward, Labour did 100% of the non-Tory canvassing and knockup, and we cheerfully encouraged people who were going to vote LibDem to go and vote, partly because we reckoned that half of them would give us a vote too, as indeed they did. In some other wards, the LibDems did 100% of the canvass and knockup, and Labour has won some seats at Borough and Town level which we mnight not have done otherwise.
Cheers for that feedback Nick. So not fortuitous then, but planning. The LD vote looked possibly high enough for them to have possibly made it even with a split vote, but two possibles in there, in the addition to hindsight, and me not having any local info any more. So I'm possibly spouting twaddle to the victor on the ground.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @Andy_Cooke said:
> > > I'm also finding it hard to compare directly with bad results in the past.
> > > For example, in 1995, we had the Tories losing 2000 councillors in a cycle that hit their heartlands like today, with the Lib Dems picking up 487 and Labour 1800.
> > >
> > > But the number of councillors has changed, with councils amalgamated (into unitaries), or cut up, and with the number of councillors per council changed (for example, when the Lib Dems took Vale of White Horse in 1995, there were 51 councillors on the council; the same council today has 38 councillors). In addition, Wales had local elections at this point in the cycle then; they don't now.
> > >
> > > I found a Parliamentary Research Paper from 1995 which stated there were 12,153 councillors elected that day. Up until just now, on the BBC website, there have been 8,410 councillors elected (and the mainland count seems complete). The sort of regions contested (primarily rural), though, looks comparable.
> > >
> > > Scale-wise, then, a loss of 1334 councillors of 8410 contested looks only a little less bad than a loss of 2018 councillors out of 12,153 places contested. A gain of 703 against a backdrop of 8,410 contests looks a lot better than a gain of 487 out of a backdrop of 12,153 contested (albeit from a significantly lower starting point).
> > >
> > > No matter how you spin it, though, a loss of 82 out of 8,410 is a hell of a lot worse than a gain of 1,807 out of 12,153.
> >
> > 2,000 of the seats were Scottish and Welsh in 1995. The Conservative losses were also on top of 1,000 losses in the previous cycle, in 1991, rather than coming from a high point. The Conservatives were left with 13 councils.
>
> Of those 13 surviving Conservative councils some didn't have elections that year - 4 or 5 in London for example.
>
> As you say 2019 from 2015 was the equivalent of 1991 from 1987.
>
> The equivalent of 1995 would be the Conservatives losing another 2000 councillors.
So we agree it was the second worst Tory LE in the modern period?
> > @another_richard said:
> > In which case all they need to do is go to the local town hall finance department with their cheque book.
> >
> > I've pointed that out to many people over the years and even offered to drive them to the local town hall / hospital / tax office so that they can make the extra payment they say they are willing to do.
> >
> > Nobody has ever accepted the offer.
>
> If you don't understand this behaviour you could maybe start here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
I understand that at each election the parties promise spending increases and tax cuts but not the other way around.
And that when people say they are willing to pay more taxes what they actually mean is that they are willing for 'people like them' to pay more taxes so that 'people like me' can get better services.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @Andy_Cooke said:
> > > I'm also finding it hard to compare directly with bad results in the past.
> > > For example, in 1995, we had the Tories losing 2000 councillors in a cycle that hit their heartlands like today, with the Lib Dems picking up 487 and Labour 1800.
> > >
> > > But the number of councillors has changed, with councils amalgamated (into unitaries), or cut up, and with the number of councillors per council changed (for example, when the Lib Dems took Vale of White Horse in 1995, there were 51 councillors on the council; the same council today has 38 councillors). In addition, Wales had local elections at this point in the cycle then; they don't now.
> > >
> > > I found a Parliamentary Research Paper from 1995 which stated there were 12,153 councillors elected that day. Up until just now, on the BBC website, there have been 8,410 councillors elected (and the mainland count seems complete). The sort of regions contested (primarily rural), though, looks comparable.
> > >
> > > Scale-wise, then, a loss of 1334 councillors of 8410 contested looks only a little less bad than a loss of 2018 councillors out of 12,153 places contested. A gain of 703 against a backdrop of 8,410 contests looks a lot better than a gain of 487 out of a backdrop of 12,153 contested (albeit from a significantly lower starting point).
> > >
> > > No matter how you spin it, though, a loss of 82 out of 8,410 is a hell of a lot worse than a gain of 1,807 out of 12,153.
> >
> > 2,000 of the seats were Scottish and Welsh in 1995. The Conservative losses were also on top of 1,000 losses in the previous cycle, in 1991, rather than coming from a high point. The Conservatives were left with 13 councils.
>
> Of those 13 surviving Conservative councils some didn't have elections that year - 4 or 5 in London for example.
>
> As you say 2019 from 2015 was the equivalent of 1991 from 1987.
>
> The equivalent of 1995 would be the Conservatives losing another 2000 councillors.
In terms of vote share, the Conservatives did as badly as in 1993-97. But, the non-Conservative vote was not as united behind Labour or (notwithstanding yesterday's results) the Lib Dems as it was back then, and tactical voting against the Conservatives was more widespread.
As a non-Lib Dem inclined sort, I agree entirely with your assessment. Great night for the yellows, benefiting from the contempt with which the electorate view the two major parties.
> Mr. Tang, I'm inclined to agree.
>
> It's why, even now, I'm still nailed on to vote Conservative at the next General Election if the wretched Corbyn or someone of his ilk is squatting on the Labour front bench.
You're going to vote for Andrea Jenkyns again.
Well there you go.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > @Andy_Cooke said:
> > > > I'm also finding it hard to compare directly with bad results in the past.
> > > > For example, in 1995, we had the Tories losing 2000 councillors in a cycle that hit their heartlands like today, with the Lib Dems picking up 487 and Labour 1800.
> > > >
> > > > But the number of councillors has changed, with councils amalgamated (into unitaries), or cut up, and with the number of councillors per council changed (for example, when the Lib Dems took Vale of White Horse in 1995, there were 51 councillors on the council; the same council today has 38 councillors). In addition, Wales had local elections at this point in the cycle then; they don't now.
> > > >
> > > > I found a Parliamentary Research Paper from 1995 which stated there were 12,153 councillors elected that day. Up until just now, on the BBC website, there have been 8,410 councillors elected (and the mainland count seems complete). The sort of regions contested (primarily rural), though, looks comparable.
> > > >
> > > > Scale-wise, then, a loss of 1334 councillors of 8410 contested looks only a little less bad than a loss of 2018 councillors out of 12,153 places contested. A gain of 703 against a backdrop of 8,410 contests looks a lot better than a gain of 487 out of a backdrop of 12,153 contested (albeit from a significantly lower starting point).
> > > >
> > > > No matter how you spin it, though, a loss of 82 out of 8,410 is a hell of a lot worse than a gain of 1,807 out of 12,153.
> > >
> > > 2,000 of the seats were Scottish and Welsh in 1995. The Conservative losses were also on top of 1,000 losses in the previous cycle, in 1991, rather than coming from a high point. The Conservatives were left with 13 councils.
> >
> > Of those 13 surviving Conservative councils some didn't have elections that year - 4 or 5 in London for example.
> >
> > As you say 2019 from 2015 was the equivalent of 1991 from 1987.
> >
> > The equivalent of 1995 would be the Conservatives losing another 2000 councillors.
>
> So we agree it was the second worst Tory LE in the modern period?
That depends on how you define things - seats won, change in seats, NEV, NEC compared to Labour NEV.
I would say that these years were worse for the Conservatives - 2013, 2012, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1990, 1985.
I'm a fan of neither anti-Semitism, nor socialism, nor those who describe Hamas and Hezbollah as their friends.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > @Andy_Cooke said:
> > > > I'm also finding it hard to compare directly with bad results in the past.
> > > > For example, in 1995, we had the Tories losing 2000 councillors in a cycle that hit their heartlands like today, with the Lib Dems picking up 487 and Labour 1800.
> > > >
> > > > But the number of councillors has changed, with councils amalgamated (into unitaries), or cut up, and with the number of councillors per council changed (for example, when the Lib Dems took Vale of White Horse in 1995, there were 51 councillors on the council; the same council today has 38 councillors). In addition, Wales had local elections at this point in the cycle then; they don't now.
> > > >
> > > > I found a Parliamentary Research Paper from 1995 which stated there were 12,153 councillors elected that day. Up until just now, on the BBC website, there have been 8,410 councillors elected (and the mainland count seems complete). The sort of regions contested (primarily rural), though, looks comparable.
> > > >
> > > > Scale-wise, then, a loss of 1334 councillors of 8410 contested looks only a little less bad than a loss of 2018 councillors out of 12,153 places contested. A gain of 703 against a backdrop of 8,410 contests looks a lot better than a gain of 487 out of a backdrop of 12,153 contested (albeit from a significantly lower starting point).
> > > >
> > > > No matter how you spin it, though, a loss of 82 out of 8,410 is a hell of a lot worse than a gain of 1,807 out of 12,153.
> > >
> > > 2,000 of the seats were Scottish and Welsh in 1995. The Conservative losses were also on top of 1,000 losses in the previous cycle, in 1991, rather than coming from a high point. The Conservatives were left with 13 councils.
> >
> > Of those 13 surviving Conservative councils some didn't have elections that year - 4 or 5 in London for example.
> >
> > As you say 2019 from 2015 was the equivalent of 1991 from 1987.
> >
> > The equivalent of 1995 would be the Conservatives losing another 2000 councillors.
>
> So we agree it was the second worst Tory LE in the modern period?
I'd say any of 1990, 1993-97, or 2012-14 were worse for the Conservatives, as they involved both big losses, and being outpolled. This one saw big losses, but the Conservatives were not outpolled.
> I've been looking at the latest YG/Times European Parliament Voting Intention (fieldwork 29-30 April).
>
> https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1b70ce1trk/TheTimes_190430_EuropeVI_Trackers_w.pdf?goal=0_494ca252da-96e8f0184e-312615349
>
> Con 13% Lab 21%, LD 10%, Green 9%, Brexit 30%, CHUK 9%
>
> It will probably change following yesterday's results, but for what it's worth, putting the regional figures (small samples) through my D'Hondt model, gives the following result in seats.
>
> Con 9, Lab 19, LD 6, Green 4, Brex 28, CHUK 2, SNP 2
___________________
Mostly because the 'PR' system imposed by Labour in 1999 is not, er, proportional.
I belonged to them long, long ago before I realised what a stitch-up UK politics was between the two largest parties.
The Labour-imposed 'PR' system now makes Brexit-loons the largest party on seats for the 2nd EU election running: 40% of the seats on 30% of the vote. It's almost like FPTP and that's deliberate I suspect.
The Lib Dem’s should be pleased but also cautious. Their vote went up only marginally on NEV. it was the field fracturing and the support of Greens and independents that pushed them forwards. They seem to have been the main beneficiaries of a curse on all your houses approach. With different people standing in future, I.e. those encouraged that an independent or resident association or green could win, then that may be different.
Secondly the BBC got its reporting weirdly wrong. Labour didn’t make expected gains and the Tories lost more seats - Lib Dem’s were rightly praised but it should be a worry that the line used on news bulletins was the Lib Dem’s, green and ‘the’ independents making gains. The CHUK having used that independent moniker recently I think they were deliberately trying to benefit them. If any party encapsulates the BBC then it is CHUK.
7 Liberals
2 Yorkshire Party
1 Britain First
1 Democrats and Veterans
Strike out for the SDP
Did WEP, English Democrats or any of the other UKIP splinters get any? Or any of the trot parties?
> A few comments about the amazing nature of the results. Has a governing party ever done so badly whilst the main opposition has also lost seats.
>
> The Lib Dem’s should be pleased but also cautious. Their vote went up only marginally on NEV. it was the field fracturing and the support of Greens and independents that pushed them forwards. They seem to have been the main beneficiaries of a curse on all your houses approach. With different people standing in future, I.e. those encouraged that an independent or resident association or green could win, then that may be different.
>
> Secondly the BBC got its reporting weirdly wrong. Labour didn’t make expected gains and the Tories lost more seats - Lib Dem’s were rightly praised but it should be a worry that the line used on news bulletins was the Lib Dem’s, green and ‘the’ independents making gains. The CHUK having used that independent moniker recently I think they were deliberately trying to benefit them. If any party encapsulates the BBC then it is CHUK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_United_Kingdom_local_elections
> A few comments about the amazing nature of the results. Has a governing party ever done so badly whilst the main opposition has also lost seats.
>
> The Lib Dem’s should be pleased but also cautious. Their vote went up only marginally on NEV. it was the field fracturing and the support of Greens and independents that pushed them forwards. They seem to have been the main beneficiaries of a curse on all your houses approach. With different people standing in future, I.e. those encouraged that an independent or resident association or green could win, then that may be different.
>
> Secondly the BBC got its reporting weirdly wrong. Labour didn’t make expected gains and the Tories lost more seats - Lib Dem’s were rightly praised but it should be a worry that the line used on news bulletins was the Lib Dem’s, green and ‘the’ independents making gains. The CHUK having used that independent moniker recently I think they were deliberately trying to benefit them. If any party encapsulates the BBC then it is CHUK.
I think 1985 is the last time that the government and opposition both lost ground.
> I'm trying to track down the 'national' (ie not localised to one council area) seats for the minor parties, so far I have
> 7 Liberals
> 2 Yorkshire Party
> 1 Britain First
> 1 Democrats and Veterans
> Strike out for the SDP
> Did WEP, English Democrats or any of the other UKIP splinters get any? Or any of the trot parties?
In some places, UKIP splinters formed local parties. They won 4 in Thurrock, 8 in Thanet, 5 in Swale. There will be some in Tendring, but very hard to distinguish from various Residents groups.
>
> Cheers for that feedback Nick. So not fortuitous then, but planning. The LD vote looked possibly high enough for them to have possibly made it even with a split vote, but two possibles in there, in the addition to hindsight, and me not having any local info any more. So I'm possibly spouting twaddle to the victor on the ground.
Who knows? But an important factor is that there are no significant differences between Labour and LibDem policy at local level here (they may emerge, but that's the position now). So actually we both seem to be fine with the results, and if there are LibDems gnashing their teeth that they didn't have a second person instead of me, or Labour people snarling that we didn't try for both, I've not met them. I like my LibDem co-councillor and I'm glad he did so well; he says he reciprocates. Yes, I'm a Corbynite and he's a centrist, but really what difference does that make in discussing policy on high street shops?
It'd be harder if he was ChangeUK, frankly. I won't support any splintering of the progressive vote beyond what already exists.
https://twitter.com/PeterArnottGlas/status/1124587864191377408
> > @kjh said:
>
> >
> > Cheers for that feedback Nick. So not fortuitous then, but planning. The LD vote looked possibly high enough for them to have possibly made it even with a split vote, but two possibles in there, in the addition to hindsight, and me not having any local info any more. So I'm possibly spouting twaddle to the victor on the ground.
>
> Who knows? But an important factor is that there are no significant differences between Labour and LibDem policy at local level here (they may emerge, but that's the position now). So actually we both seem to be fine with the results, and if there are LibDems gnashing their teeth that they didn't have a second person instead of me, or Labour people snarling that we didn't try for both, I've not met them. I like my LibDem co-councillor and I'm glad he did so well; he says he reciprocates. Yes, I'm a Corbynite and he's a centrist, but really what difference does that make in discussing policy on
high street shops?
>
> It'd be harder if he was ChangeUK, frankly. I won't support any splintering of the progressive vote beyond what already exists.
Congratulations on your win.
> > @dyedwoolie said:
> > I'm trying to track down the 'national' (ie not localised to one council area) seats for the minor parties, so far I have
> > 7 Liberals
> > 2 Yorkshire Party
> > 1 Britain First
> > 1 Democrats and Veterans
> > Strike out for the SDP
> > Did WEP, English Democrats or any of the other UKIP splinters get any? Or any of the trot parties?
>
> In some places, UKIP splinters formed local parties. They won 4 in Thurrock, 8 in Thanet, 5 in Swale. There will be some in Tendring, but very hard to distinguish from various Residents groups.
Ah yes thanks. I think I'm missing one on one of the NE/E coastal councils but can't find it
People before profit seem to have picked up a couple in NI.
> This idea that ''' Corbyn will be so bad we'll be back with a landslide in no time" is really dangerous. Corbyn and his followers will not give up power lightly. There will be votes at 16, manipulation of boundaries, a blind eye turned to all kinds of voting irregularities, demographic changes that will favour Labour... And in the meantime everything Tories hold dear - private education, the army, Parliament, tradition, monarchy - will be irreversibly undermined or dismantled. If these Berks allow a Corbyn government they will regret it forever.
*
I do understand the widespread concern in many quarters about PM Corbyn but I think comments such as the above are slipping into the realms of paranoia.
Labour are not going to suspend the democratic process if they win. There will be a subsequent general election at which the measures enacted in a first term will be judged by the electorate. By us.
For example, take one particular flagship policy that my sources tell me is likely to be a priority for the first 100 days - the redevelopment of Eton into social housing for displaced transsexuals (subject to planning permission).
Sounds ultra radical and not a little frightening? Sure. But if in practice it proves wildly unpopular - ditto the various innovations in a similar vein that are no doubt planned - then as soon as we get a chance it's bye bye Jeremy and Johnny Mac and Diane and the rest of the crew, and it's back to business as usual.
> I'm trying to track down the 'national' (ie not localised to one council area) seats for the minor parties, so far I have
> 7 Liberals
> 2 Yorkshire Party
> 1 Britain First
> 1 Democrats and Veterans
> Strike out for the SDP
> Did WEP, English Democrats or any of the other UKIP splinters get any? Or any of the trot parties?
Four Yorkshire Party were elected in Selby:
https://www.selby.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/Combined District.pdf
Is Gove saying that Scottish Westminster MPs are the true voice of Scotland?
> > @dyedwoolie said:
> > I'm trying to track down the 'national' (ie not localised to one council area) seats for the minor parties, so far I have
> > 7 Liberals
> > 2 Yorkshire Party
> > 1 Britain First
> > 1 Democrats and Veterans
> > Strike out for the SDP
> > Did WEP, English Democrats or any of the other UKIP splinters get any? Or any of the trot parties?
>
> Four Yorkshire Party were elected in Selby:
>
> https://www.selby.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/Combined District.pdf
Ah cool thank you
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6991155/DAVID-DAVIS-dont-want-Prime-Minister-Ill-vote-Dominic-Raab.html
"the standout candidate is Dominic Raab, so I will back him if he runs."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6991155/DAVID-DAVIS-dont-want-Prime-Minister-Ill-vote-Dominic-Raab.html