So looks like the votes have been piling up in Wales for Labour then lol
My legendary modesty prevents me from mentioning that I said backing Drakeford to lose his seat was excellent value the Welsh are the Mitch McConnell of British politics.
Drakeford is a nob, his party have done very well electorally in the pandemic. Johnson is a nob, he has done very well electorally in the pandemic. Is there a correlation?
Never saw this coming. OMG. Did Jack Baille punch a Conservative in the face or something?
It was pretty marginal last time, mind. 109 was Ms Baillie's majority in 2016. I suspect she was already wringing out the Tory tactical vote even then. Or attitudes to nukes have hardened locally - who wants to be a target when Mr Williamson is going on about annoying the Chinese?
May be mistaken, but it appears SCons are more likely to vote tactically Unionist than SLab (which of course may simply reflect greater support for the Union among SCon voters):
Elizabeth Buffy Williams (Labour) 54.7 (+18.8) Leanne Wood (Plaid) 31.3 (-19.3)
Labour gain
Not sure why Plaid are doing badly. It does feel as though the independence mood is growing. There are now several alternative options with Gwlad and Neil McEvoy's Propel as pro-independence.
Because it isn’t, whatever it feels like.
The majority of pro-independence people in Wales see it as a vague aspiration, that might be quite nice in the future. When several rather crucial issues have been sorted out.
Plaid Cymru’s obsession with it, or to be exact, the obsession of the past two leaders with it just makes them look stupid and out of touch. Imagine a party in Dorset arguing to be made a devolved area because Manchester has a mayor, while failing to empty the bins or mend school roofs, and you have some idea of how silly they look.
I expected them to fall back, I am surprised at how badly they are doing.
Those responses make for very depressing reading in Starmer. Some clearly still there because of the shadow of Corbyn but most don't seem to like Starmer much at all.
He's got a year to turn it around and seemingly what these people want is leadership, i.e. to kick out the loony lefties and get Labour back to the centre. Can he do it? I am honestly doubtful at this point.
Part of the problem is that all the focus on Corbyn has left a legacy that the fault is always with the leader. Whereas the faults are more structural, even if Starmer has been lacklustre about addressing them
Goes back way before that imho. Why did Blair win? Because he was a good leader. Therefore. Why didn't Brown, Ed M, Corbyn or Starmer? Because they weren't.
However. If you answer why did Blair win? Because he had popular policies, a very strong, capable team around him, iron Party discipline, and the added superb bonus of unpopular and divided opponents. Then you get a totally different answer for why the others didn't. Proof. John Smith would have won in 97. Because he had all those too. Not because Smith and Blair were uniquely good leaders.
The problem, though, is that the Blairite formula suddenly stopped working between 2005 and 2007, before he left. The party started shedding large numbers of votes during this time, and so although Blair and Mandelson had a great tactical and structural blueprint for the party, their ideological blueprint, which they were sure would be permanent, and about which New Labour-era policians still struggle to see as anything other than an entitlement, suddenly began to fail.
Well indeed. Because it wasn't all about the leader. Iron Party discipline fell apart over Iraq. That vastly capable team, did likewise. Senior Cabinet Ministers departed due to ill health, opposition to the War, scandal and fed upness. His major policy, Iraq, initially popular, simply looked more and more Fuck witted with every coup, insurgency, suicide bombing and conspicuous failure to produce WMD's. And they shed a lot of votes before 2005 too.
It’s just a constant stream of bad news for the Tories in Scotland.
Possibly time to consider that they might have done better in this election with Jackson Carlaw as leader, rather than Dross.
Well, possibly. But that is a bar so law a limbo dancing ant would be struggling to get under it.
I think the Tory idea of success was to deny the SNP a majority. So we wait..
Also a bar a planarian would find it hard to get under, as the voting system was designed to do precisely that. If I let my staff give themselves such pathetic targets my own boss would be at my ear within hours.
The Conservatives have taken control of Cornwall for the first time - won 46 of the 87 seats.
In Surrey, 60 results in - 35 Conservatives and 25 non-Conservatives.
Bit of a shock as Julie Iles lost her seat.. big conservative figure down here
Not a shock in the slightest - It was a certainty. I live in the ward.
Lot of history re the Tories in Guildford over the last few years. They got slaughtered in the Boroughs as a consequence. They also fell out with the Mole Valley Tories. This ward is in Guildford Borough, but Mole Valley constituency.
Several years ago when this was all exploding there was a Borough by election in Ripley (also in this ward). It has been Tory held forever. The LD (Colin Cross) took it with 70% of the vote. As the scandals festered on a residents group got set up. Colin and a number of Tories defected to it, as well as there being a lot of new blood. The residents group walked the Borough wards in this county seat (with 1 exception that was a LD with a lot of local support) in the Borough election.
There was no way Colin wasn't going to win it.
PS I voted for him also rather than the LD whom I would normally vote for.
Interesting. Waverley are in talks with Guildford on close cooperation (I'm involved), perhaps even eventual merger, and anti-Tory residents' groups are significant in both.
I have a lot of history with SW Surrey. When we won Guildford it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey. In fact SW Surrey was the main target of the two so I spent a lot of time there. In addition when the LDs imploded there I had to preside over the expulsion of two of the councilors from the party. I just wanted to bang their heads together. It was the start of the end of this being a top LD target.
Those responses make for very depressing reading in Starmer. Some clearly still there because of the shadow of Corbyn but most don't seem to like Starmer much at all.
He's got a year to turn it around and seemingly what these people want is leadership, i.e. to kick out the loony lefties and get Labour back to the centre. Can he do it? I am honestly doubtful at this point.
Part of the problem is that all the focus on Corbyn has left a legacy that the fault is always with the leader. Whereas the faults are more structural, even if Starmer has been lacklustre about addressing them
Goes back way before that imho. Why did Blair win? Because he was a good leader. Therefore. Why didn't Brown, Ed M, Corbyn or Starmer? Because they weren't.
However. If you answer why did Blair win? Because he had popular policies, a very strong, capable team around him, iron Party discipline, and the added superb bonus of unpopular and divided opponents. Then you get a totally different answer for why the others didn't. Proof. John Smith would have won in 97. Because he had all those too. Not because Smith and Blair were uniquely good leaders.
The problem, though, is that the Blairite formula suddenly stopped working between 2005 and 2007, before he left. The party started shedding large numbers of votes during this time, and so although Blair and Mandelson had a great tactical and structural blueprint for the party, their ideological blueprint, which they were sure would be permanent, and about which New Labour-era policians still struggle to see as anything other than an entitlement, suddenly began to fail.
Well indeed. Because it wasn't all about the leader. Iron Party discipline fell apart over Iraq. That vastly capable team, did likewise. Senior Cabinet Ministers departed due to ill health, opposition to the War, scandal and fed upness. His major policy, Iraq, initially popular, simply looked more and more Fuck witted with every coup, insurgency, suicide bombing and conspicuous failure to produce WMD's. And they shed a lot of votes before 2005 too.
The shift accelerated around 2005, though, and I think you have to look at the cultural shift that occurred in both the old Labour heartlands and metropolitan areas during that time concurrently , too. Kennedy's Liberal Democrats started to represent a more progressive urban alternative, to metropolitan liberals, well beyond Iraq , and there was a gradual shedding of trust from the heartlands, both at the pace of social improvement, and over the governance failure of Iraq. Part of these were connected with Blair and Mandelson's ideological approach itself, not just Iraq, I would say.
Drakeford is a nob, his party have done very well electorally in the pandemic. Johnson is a nob, he has done very well electorally in the pandemic. Is there a correlation?
That's a point - all 3 incumbents have done well today.
Elizabeth Buffy Williams (Labour) 54.7 (+18.8) Leanne Wood (Plaid) 31.3 (-19.3)
Labour gain
Not sure why Plaid are doing badly. It does feel as though the independence mood is growing. There are now several alternative options with Gwlad and Neil McEvoy's Propel as pro-independence.
Because it isn’t, whatever it feels like.
The majority of pro-independence people in Wales see it as a vague aspiration, that might be quite nice in the future. When several rather crucial issues have been sorted out.
That kind of vote in Wales is a bit like the muddy middle (pro-SNP, No to independence) vote in Scotland. Desperate to be rid of the English but like our money too much.
If they were both net contributors to the Treasury they'd be out the exit door like a shot. There's little interest left in Britain but plenty of interest in not paying more tax.
Drakeford is a nob, his party have done very well electorally in the pandemic. Johnson is a nob, he has done very well electorally in the pandemic. Is there a correlation?
That's a point - all 3 incumbents have done well today.
It is too early to say that the SNP have “done well”. However, they have not “done badly”.
I do think that incumbency during the pandemic is definitely part of the story with these results.
Drakeford is a nob, his party have done very well electorally in the pandemic. Johnson is a nob, he has done very well electorally in the pandemic. Is there a correlation?
Nob beats a Nobody every time
SKS is a nobody and a shockingly poor one at that.
Starmer needs to do two things with the sleaze allegations swirling round Number 10. First, he needs to nail Boris to the wall so that he must resign. More importantly though, he needs to get the message across to voters that the issue is corruption not wallpaper. The evidence of the yesterday's election results is that he has failed on the politics, even if he can eventually topple the Prime Minister.
The Times story is interesting but is paywalled. What can be seen looks like a loose, easy-come culture, even if there is nothing legally wrong.
There was also a suggestion a couple of days ago that Boris's brother Jo had landed a job with Dyson which if nothing else might explain how they knew each other's mobile numbers.
Labour are really going to struggle to get Boris out over wallpapergate or anything else that came out pre-election now. The Tories will be hanging onto Boris for dear life given these results.
They could still wound him if the drip-drip continues (which could help them in the next elections/2024), but as for anything else, the office of PM is self regulating (save for the boys in blue turning up at Number 10 and taking an incumbent away!) and the pressure to resign goes hand in hand with political pressure, and labours political credibility has taken yet another blow. I don’t think they’ve got the strength to force a PM out of office now, particularly one who has just had a decent night at the polls.
Starmer's platform must be Parliament. He needs to use his forensic legal skills to nail the aura of sleaze and corruption around Number 10, and Boris's tenuous relationship with the truth. He has six questions each week to do so.
This didn’t work for William Hague, who had substantially more wit and spontaneity than Starmer does. There’s just no way his target voter base is going to be turned on even slightly, by the oh so clever barrister tricks and niggles that he comes up with. Starmer’s leadership is actually beyond repair, if indeed it ever stood a chance after the shambles of his time as Brexit Shadow Sec.
Labour should start again or they’re going to waste another 18-24 months, by which time BJ will be limbering up for a snap election.
I suspect that Boris is already contemplating engineering an election in 2022 (for example on the issue of whether Westminster or Nippy decide constitutional questions). He may want to sneak one in while SKS is LOTO if he decides, along with a lot of Labour MPs and much of England, that actually SKS isn't going to be PM so Boris would be safe home.
There are one or two Labour MPs who just might be able to beat him, though a remarkable number of them are in dodgy seats (Rayner, Cooper, Phillipson and no doubt others).
I have a lot of history with SW Surrey. When we won Guildford it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey. In fact SW Surrey was the main target of the two so I spent a lot of time there. In addition when the LDs imploded there I had to preside over the expulsion of two of the councilors from the party. I just wanted to bang their heads together. It was the start of the end of this being a top LD target.
A former LibDem who switche dto us after the implosion was telling me lurid tales about it, including wife-swapping?! He and his wife joined when they moved to the area but found the atmsphere utterly unwelcoming with the clique only interested in each other, so they switched to us. In fairness, though, Paul Follows has revived them - he got a 35% swing today. They are still a narrow base - only half a dozen really active people, as far as I can tell - but they've built big personal votes. I don't think the Tories will ever lose the Parliamentary seat, though, unless the boundaries change.
I have a lot of history with SW Surrey. When we won Guildford it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey. In fact SW Surrey was the main target of the two so I spent a lot of time there. In addition when the LDs imploded there I had to preside over the expulsion of two of the councilors from the party. I just wanted to bang their heads together. It was the start of the end of this being a top LD target.
A former LibDem who switche dto us after the implosion was telling me lurid tales about it, including wife-swapping?! He and his wife joined when they moved to the area but found the atmsphere utterly unwelcoming with the clique only interested in each other, so they switched to us. In fairness, though, Paul Follows has revived them - he got a 35% swing today. They are still a narrow base - only half a dozen really active people, as far as I can tell - but they've built big personal votes. I don't think the Tories will ever lose the Parliamentary seat, though, unless the boundaries change.
John Curtis: Tories holding Eastwood means the chances of an SNP majority have significant declined.
If the SNP fail to win an outright majority then I think that might be curtains for indyref2.
Greens also have it in their manifesto.
Yep but I don't think that's sufficient. This was an SNP bid to win a mandate for indyref2. If they haven't won an outright majority then the union holds.
A good performance - against national trend - might give him a strong base to launch a Kier ouster.
He's not in parliament. May as well bet on David Miliband.
At least Burnham is in the UK.
Doesn't Miliband's role with the International Rescue Mission mean he can be deployed at a moment's notice?
Well, of course. Thunderbirds and all that.
Wouldn't Lady Penelope be a more appealing choice IF you wish to select the next Labour Leader from the Thunderbird roster? Would tick off the woman box?
OR if you do NOT wish to go posh, how's about Parker? Working class bloke, if not exactly in the model of Keir (Hardy that is).
John Curtis: Tories holding Eastwood means the chances of an SNP majority have significant declined.
If the SNP fail to win an outright majority then I think that might be curtains for indyref2.
Greens also have it in their manifesto.
Yep but I don't think that's sufficient. This was an SNP bid to win a mandate for indyref2. If they haven't won an outright majority then the union holds.
Parliamentary vote is what counts. Exactly as with Brexit at Westminster - Topries were a minoriuty and needed the Labour rebels and DUP.
A good performance - against national trend - might give him a strong base to launch a Kier ouster.
He's not in parliament. May as well bet on David Miliband.
At least Burnham is in the UK.
Doesn't Miliband's role with the International Rescue Mission mean he can be deployed at a moment's notice?
David Miliband might have been the answer 15 years ago. He isn't now.
They need a northerner who is unashamed to be patriotic and who doesn't kow tow to the woke metropolitans.
Except that risks them losing their metropolitan vote to the LibDems or the Greens, quite possibly letting the Conservatives in in those seats.
.
No I think you're wrong there Robert.
Whereas the southern metropolitan luvvies will put up with a northerner Labour leader, as they have for the past century, the opposite is not true.
It's part of the patronising woke metropolitan agenda that they will tolerate a good old northerner in charge of the party so long as he or she is basically coming out with the right kind of policies. They'll put up with a bit of patriotism and they know they've lost the EU so, for them, it's no longer an issue.
A good performance - against national trend - might give him a strong base to launch a Kier ouster.
Labour's Manchester council majority of 92 suggests he might just have squeaked in.
My mum, who voted Tory in her leafy suburban council ward, voted for Andy Burnham. I'd say he's probably nailed on.
The Mayoral constituency is much wider than Manchester itself though, isn't it?
Burnham has a massive profile, and a lot of goodwill locally. It's Greater Manchester which is as socially mixed as you might imagine, but he will win it.
Starmer needs to do two things with the sleaze allegations swirling round Number 10. First, he needs to nail Boris to the wall so that he must resign. More importantly though, he needs to get the message across to voters that the issue is corruption not wallpaper. The evidence of the yesterday's election results is that he has failed on the politics, even if he can eventually topple the Prime Minister.
The Times story is interesting but is paywalled. What can be seen looks like a loose, easy-come culture, even if there is nothing legally wrong.
There was also a suggestion a couple of days ago that Boris's brother Jo had landed a job with Dyson which if nothing else might explain how they knew each other's mobile numbers.
Labour are really going to struggle to get Boris out over wallpapergate or anything else that came out pre-election now. The Tories will be hanging onto Boris for dear life given these results.
They could still wound him if the drip-drip continues (which could help them in the next elections/2024), but as for anything else, the office of PM is self regulating (save for the boys in blue turning up at Number 10 and taking an incumbent away!) and the pressure to resign goes hand in hand with political pressure, and labours political credibility has taken yet another blow. I don’t think they’ve got the strength to force a PM out of office now, particularly one who has just had a decent night at the polls.
Starmer's platform must be Parliament. He needs to use his forensic legal skills to nail the aura of sleaze and corruption around Number 10, and Boris's tenuous relationship with the truth. He has six questions each week to do so.
This didn’t work for William Hague, who had substantially more wit and spontaneity than Starmer does. There’s just no way his target voter base is going to be turned on even slightly, by the oh so clever barrister tricks and niggles that he comes up with. Starmer’s leadership is actually beyond repair, if indeed it ever stood a chance after the shambles of his time as Brexit Shadow Sec.
Labour should start again or they’re going to waste another 18-24 months, by which time BJ will be limbering up for a snap election.
I suspect that Boris is already contemplating engineering an election in 2022 (for example on the issue of whether Westminster or Nippy decide constitutional questions). He may want to sneak one in while SKS is LOTO if he decides, along with a lot of Labour MPs and much of England, that actually SKS isn't going to be PM so Boris would be safe home.
There are one or two Labour MPs who just might be able to beat him, though a remarkable number of them are in dodgy seats (Rayner, Cooper, Phillipson and no doubt others).
In 1935 Stanley Baldwin called the election just after George Lansbury resigned (under pressure) as Labour leader and Clement Attlee was selected in his place, thus catching Labour on the back foot. And securing another big win for the National Govt.
John Curtis: Tories holding Eastwood means the chances of an SNP majority have significant declined.
If the SNP fail to win an outright majority then I think that might be curtains for indyref2.
Greens also have it in their manifesto.
Yep but I don't think that's sufficient. This was an SNP bid to win a mandate for indyref2. If they haven't won an outright majority then the union holds.
Parliamentary vote is what counts. Exactly as with Brexit at Westminster - Topries were a minoriuty and needed the Labour rebels and DUP.
The constitution is a devolved matter. Johnson will ignore the Scottish Parliament. We all know this.
Scotland is stuck in its current rut until people either get bored of banging on about independence for decades on end and give up, or an enfeebled left-wing opposition at Westminster finally manages to scrape together enough votes in England and Wales to put the SNP into bat as the balancing power in the Commons. I'm imagining that the latter will occur, but Lord alone knows how many years you'll be waiting for it.
John Curtis: Tories holding Eastwood means the chances of an SNP majority have significant declined.
If the SNP fail to win an outright majority then I think that might be curtains for indyref2.
Yes and no.
It’s probably curtains to the idea that Boris would feel pressured enough to commit to one.
But given an IndyRef bill will get through with Green Party backing, and then we have the fun of the court case, we’ve got a ways to go yet. Though if there is no SNP majority I agree the chances of an IndyRef this side of GE2024 look incredibly slim.
Is the prospect then of a clear 'number of seats' victory in Scotland for independence supporters, but with the actual vote numbers split about 50/50 between unionists and independents, while the polling on independence looks similarly about 50/50? A bit of a nightmare for the person, none other than Nippy, who has to make the first move is it not?
Boris has the luxury of being able to sit tight and wait. It seems to me he is safe until all three of these particular lemons are in a row.
Comments
Watching the List vote in this seat will be hilarious. I predict Conservatives will be in first place on the list.
48% turnout, against an island figure of 37%. Some other wards must have some low turnouts
That's worse that Gavin Williamson level stuff, right there. VdL level stupidity maybe?
The majority of pro-independence people in Wales see it as a vague aspiration, that might be quite nice in the future. When several rather crucial issues have been sorted out.
Plaid Cymru’s obsession with it, or to be exact, the obsession of the past two leaders with it just makes them look stupid and out of touch. Imagine a party in Dorset arguing to be made a devolved area because Manchester has a mayor, while failing to empty the bins or mend school roofs, and you have some idea of how silly they look.
I expected them to fall back, I am surprised at how badly they are doing.
Brexit: 2%
Not for working people: 2%
Too woke: 2%
Starmer/Leadership: 14%
Policies not clear: 11%
It's funny though, I thought woke was the main problem, perhaps far too many do spend too much time on Twitter
Iron Party discipline fell apart over Iraq. That vastly capable team, did likewise. Senior Cabinet Ministers departed due to ill health, opposition to the War, scandal and fed upness.
His major policy, Iraq, initially popular, simply looked more and more Fuck witted with every coup, insurgency, suicide bombing and conspicuous failure to produce WMD's.
And they shed a lot of votes before 2005 too.
Lab 16
Con 3
LD 1
no changes
Wigan
Lab 19
Con 4
Ind 3
No changes
Also in Salford (whole council up) Labour seem to have held up well.
On the other hand, in Oldham they lost seats.
Now odds on “no maj”
In Wales
Looks like a council loss for the Tories, to NOC, if this continues
Kensington is value for Labour gain 2024 whatever happens
This is beyond all expectations for them. Guess Drakeford is quite popular after all
My mum, who voted Tory in her leafy suburban council ward, voted for Andy Burnham. I'd say he's probably nailed on.
Designed to make it difficult to gain a majority. Yes, I’m saying that 😂
John Curtis: Tories holding Eastwood means the chances of an SNP majority have significant declined.
Does it follow the SDP, PS and PSI into irrelevancy?
Assemble a motley coalition of never-Johnsons to attain power like the PSOE?
Or find a toothsome young female who, while administratively incompetent, can out-act Johnson on “the feelz” like the NZ Labour Party?
Alan Johnson has retired I believe, so the Biden/Democrat option is not available.
Khan 50.9 (-4.6)
Bailey 19.9 (-0.9)
Berry 11.5 (+2.8)
Porritt 5.3 (-1.1)
If they were both net contributors to the Treasury they'd be out the exit door like a shot. There's little interest left in Britain but plenty of interest in not paying more tax.
@BallotBoxScot
·
35s
Eastwood (West) Constituency Vote:
Conservative ~ 17911 (41.9%, +6.3)
SNP ~ 15695 (36.8%, +5.5)
Labour ~ 6759 (15.8%, -14.7)
Independent ~ 1352 (3.2%, +3.2)
Lib Dem ~ 911 (2.1%, -0.4)
UKIP ~ 75 (0.2%, +0.2)
I do think that incumbency during the pandemic is definitely part of the story with these results.
They need a northerner who is unashamed to be patriotic and who doesn't kow tow to the woke metropolitans.
About 1.65 'no majority' as I type.
The Labour Party can't go in two directions at the same time.
SNP 40% (-3)
CON 24% (+2)
LAB 18% (-1)
LD 7% (-)
GRN 6% (+1)
ALBA 2%
@BallotBoxScot
Replying to
@BallotBoxScot
Midlothian North & Musselburgh (Lothian) Constituency Vote:
SNP ~ 21165 (49.7%, +0.8)
Labour ~ 13259 (31.1%, +2.6)
Conservative ~ 6521 (15.3%, -2.8)
Lib Dem ~ 1630 (3.8%, -0.7)
Krupesh Hirani (Lab) elected for Brent and Harrow.
SKS is a nobody and a shockingly poor one at that.
There are one or two Labour MPs who just might be able to beat him, though a remarkable number of them are in dodgy seats (Rayner, Cooper, Phillipson and no doubt others).
OR if you do NOT wish to go posh, how's about Parker? Working class bloke, if not exactly in the model of Keir (Hardy that is).
Thunderbirds - Lady Penelope's Triumph
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnij4E6Vopw
https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/election-results/results-2021/watch-live-results
I want swings against 16!
Whereas the southern metropolitan luvvies will put up with a northerner Labour leader, as they have for the past century, the opposite is not true.
It's part of the patronising woke metropolitan agenda that they will tolerate a good old northerner in charge of the party so long as he or she is basically coming out with the right kind of policies. They'll put up with a bit of patriotism and they know they've lost the EU so, for them, it's no longer an issue.
Live and learn Starmer
https://twitter.com/GeorgeAylett/status/1380126037711982592/photo/1
Scotland is stuck in its current rut until people either get bored of banging on about independence for decades on end and give up, or an enfeebled left-wing opposition at Westminster finally manages to scrape together enough votes in England and Wales to put the SNP into bat as the balancing power in the Commons. I'm imagining that the latter will occur, but Lord alone knows how many years you'll be waiting for it.
It’s probably curtains to the idea that Boris would feel pressured enough to commit to one.
But given an IndyRef bill will get through with Green Party backing, and then we have the fun of the court case, we’ve got a ways to go yet. Though if there is no SNP majority I agree the chances of an IndyRef this side of GE2024 look incredibly slim.
Boris has the luxury of being able to sit tight and wait. It seems to me he is safe until all three of these particular lemons are in a row.