In Harlow the Tories have gained a seat from Labour and have held 12 seats, Reform gained zero. So further good news from Essex there in contrast to the Reform sweep of Basildon
Why is Tim Montgomerie slurring his words and spasm-ing? Is he drunk or is it an illness?
This has been mentioned previously a number of times. This is how he is during basically every media appearance. I believe he has some serious health condition.
Hearing from multiple Labour sources all agreed on one thing: it's even worse than feared. When you underperform the lowest of expectations, you're in trouble.
In Brentwood Reform are sweeping most of the Tory rural wards and have won 2/3 of Hutton but the Tories held one Hutton seat and the Tories also held a seat in wealthy Ingatestone where the LDs were first in the ward last time with the LDs collapsing to third. The LDs won one of the Brentwood town seats with one Labour seat in the town going Reform
Conservatives losing 50% of seats - 55 out of 111.
Not in Harlow, fantastic Tory result there with 5 net gains, I know having campaigned with them how hard the Tory team work there to get their vote out and Dan Swords as Tory council leader has done a fantastic job on regeneration work for the town. Well deserved, Tories across the country could learn from the great Harlow team
Results so far very much in line with predictions. Trouble is. Most didn't believe the predictions.
Some did. Labour are as popular as a turd in a swimming pool.
"The Press Association, which is providing the data for our results tracker, says that after 10 fully declared council results, Labour has won only 17% of the seats it was defending"
An area in which every single ward consistently voted for Andy Burnham. Just saying.
Sincere question: what does that imply?
I think the implication is Burnham isn’t guaranteed to win a by-election.
There are no safe Labour seats outside of London so his leadership plans might implode .
That’s my take maybe I’m wrong .
Burnham is stuck- high risk of not getting into the Commons in a by election, and high risk that Labour loses the Manc mayor by election as well. I would be laying his chances with a trowel.
An area in which every single ward consistently voted for Andy Burnham. Just saying.
Sincere question: what does that imply?
I think the implication is Burnham isn’t guaranteed to win a by-election.
There are no safe Labour seats outside of London so his leadership plans might implode .
That’s my take maybe I’m wrong .
Burnham is stuck- high risk of not getting into the Commons in a by election, and high risk that Labour loses the Manc mayor by election as well. I would be laying his chances with a trowel.
Generally voters really hate unnecessary elections.
An area in which every single ward consistently voted for Andy Burnham. Just saying.
Sincere question: what does that imply?
I think the implication is Burnham isn’t guaranteed to win a by-election.
There are no safe Labour seats outside of London so his leadership plans might implode .
That’s my take maybe I’m wrong .
Burnham is stuck- high risk of not getting into the Commons in a by election, and high risk that Labour loses the Manc mayor by election as well. I would be laying his chances with a trowel.
I am one of many deeply in the red if he is next PM.
An area in which every single ward consistently voted for Andy Burnham. Just saying.
Sincere question: what does that imply?
I think the implication is Burnham isn’t guaranteed to win a by-election.
There are no safe Labour seats outside of London so his leadership plans might implode .
That’s my take maybe I’m wrong .
Burnham is stuck- high risk of not getting into the Commons in a by election, and high risk that Labour loses the Manc mayor by election as well. I would be laying his chances with a trowel.
Generally voters really hate unnecessary elections.
Especially if there is more than a whiff of the carpet bagger about a candidate- smacks of arrogance. Labour- not even Burnham Labour- has no safe seat to parachute him in. Next Labour leader is already in the Commons.
An area in which every single ward consistently voted for Andy Burnham. Just saying.
Sincere question: what does that imply?
I think the implication is Burnham isn’t guaranteed to win a by-election.
There are no safe Labour seats outside of London so his leadership plans might implode .
That’s my take maybe I’m wrong .
Burnham is stuck- high risk of not getting into the Commons in a by election, and high risk that Labour loses the Manc mayor by election as well. I would be laying his chances with a trowel.
I am one of many deeply in the red if he is next PM.
Cooper looks like a value bet- first Labour woman PM ?
An area in which every single ward consistently voted for Andy Burnham. Just saying.
Sincere question: what does that imply?
I think the implication is Burnham isn’t guaranteed to win a by-election.
There are no safe Labour seats outside of London so his leadership plans might implode .
That’s my take maybe I’m wrong .
Burnham is stuck- high risk of not getting into the Commons in a by election, and high risk that Labour loses the Manc mayor by election as well. I would be laying his chances with a trowel.
I am one of many deeply in the red if he is next PM.
Cooper looks like a value bet- first Labour woman PM ?
Yes, I think chromosomes count, so am in the green on Cooper, Rayner, Thornbury and Powell.
The council had been under Labour control since 1979
Only a third of the seats up so it would always be difficult for Labour to lose ... oh hold on.
Labour avoided a full wipeout by winning back St Peter's Ward in Ashton, formally a hold, but won by a Gaza Independent last time out in 2024.
They would have retained a majority but for councillors becoming Independent during the last couple of years, which tbh has been another symptom of Labour woes.
Just heard Green has taken a seat from Labour in Oxford. Jericho was a red stronghold for years.
The walls of Jericho have fallen.
Vital question of the night -
Why is Jericho in Oxford called Jericho?
According to Google's AI:
Jericho in Oxford is named after a 17th-century public house/farm known as "Jericho House". Located just outside the city walls, the name likely signified a "remote place" to travelers, referencing the biblical city of Jericho, while also serving as a refuge for those arriving after the town gates had closed
The Name's Origin: The name was first recorded in 1668 by Anthony Wood, who noted spending time at "Jericho Gardens" near the inn.A "Remote" Location: In the 17th century, the area was outside the city wall.
The name was adopted to represent a remote place, a common 17th-century term for places outside of a town's immediate jurisdiction. The "Jericho House" Pub:
The name is closely tied to a wayside inn, later known as The Jericho Tavern on Walton Street, which operated as a lodging for travellers who arrived too late for the city gates.
I wonder if the new Green councillor knows all that?
John Curtice is suggesting Labour hasn't done as badly as predicted, less than 1500 losses because they will do better in London.
Oh, landslide is much too mild a word - this is an asteroid coming down and wiping out practically all life on planet earth!
It does look like he is looking at with rose tinted glasses on, saying doesn't think Reform is getting 30% on national vote share and Labour not down bad enough to get rid of Starmer.
Sky don't seem to have let Thrasher out the cupboard yet, be interested to see his take.
Good morning all. Somewhat bemused by the enthusiasm being shown by newly elected councillors, especially Reform. You'd have thought they had won the lottery whereas a cursory investigation of a council's budget would show they're now responsible for potholes, bins and looking after people's grannies or special needs children.
Good morning all. Somewhat bemused by the enthusiasm being shown by newly elected councillors, especially Reform. You'd have thought they had won the lottery whereas a cursory investigation of a council's budget would show they're now responsible for potholes, bins and looking after people's grannies or special needs children.
Enjoy as they say
It's worse than that.
They have responsibility for those issues, but very little power, because so much of it is mandated by central government, which often uses those mandates as a way to cut spending without taking direct political responsibility.
So they have responsibility without much power, a terrible position to be in.
Unpaid.
So, when people complain about the low quality of councillors, given our current system, it's a miracle they are as good and dedicated as many of them are.
Good morning all. Somewhat bemused by the enthusiasm being shown by newly elected councillors, especially Reform. You'd have thought they had won the lottery whereas a cursory investigation of a council's budget would show they're now responsible for potholes, bins and looking after people's grannies or special needs children.
Enjoy as they say
It's worse than that.
They have responsibility for those issues, but very little power, because so much of it is mandated by central government, which often uses those mandates as a way to cut spending without taking direct political responsibility.
So they have responsibility without much power, a terrible position to be in.
Unpaid.
So, when people complain about the low quality of councillors, given our current system, it's a miracle they are as good and dedicated as many of them are.
Congratulations to them for the supplying the nation's need for low quality councillors.
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
I'm not sure 1864 is even possible is it? Weren't Labour only defending 2100 odd, so that implies a nearly 90% loss of seats (and no sneaky compensating gains).
Especially as Labour have 200 seats already, implying -1900 is the upper bound.
You cannot lose more than the seats you are defending.
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
I'm not sure 1864 is even possible is it? Weren't Labour only defending 2100 odd, so that implies a nearly 90% loss of seats (and no sneaky compensating gains).
Especially as Labour have 200 seats already, implying -1900 is the upper bound.
You cannot lose more than the seats you are defending.
Are you questioning Prof Trashers working out? I think they can lose that many, as there was a poll prediction in the run up that had them losing in exactly this range.
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
Its a terrrrrrrible night for ...
... getting the counts done in a timely fashion.
We are on 237/1864 losses so far it seems.
Any Council that does not start its count on Thursday night should be abolished.
Even starting the count promptly isn't a cure-all.
Havering appears to be as frugal on vote counters as everything else, with 6/54 seats declared.
So far, Reform 4 (+4) Labour 2(-1) Cons 0(-1) Residents 0(-2).
Meanwhile, Goodwin's original nemesis opines:
I fear Labour people risk falling into an ecological fallacy visible from space when reacting to these results. Here is what is very clear in results so far: Labour are losing *seats* to Reform, but... Labour are losing *votes* to the Greens
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
I'm not sure 1864 is even possible is it? Weren't Labour only defending 2100 odd, so that implies a nearly 90% loss of seats (and no sneaky compensating gains).
Especially as Labour have 200 seats already, implying -1900 is the upper bound.
You cannot lose more than the seats you are defending.
Are you questioning Prof Trashers working out?
I know. I wasn't convinced by some of the counts of seats defended, I think some sites may have quoted seat counts as of yesterday rather than those returned in 2022 (and 2023, 2024 in the case of all-ups for boundary changes).
So, I can only think Thrasher is counting a higher number of Labour defences, but he is operating very close to the upper bound of the possible.
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
I'm not sure 1864 is even possible is it? Weren't Labour only defending 2100 odd, so that implies a nearly 90% loss of seats (and no sneaky compensating gains).
Especially as Labour have 200 seats already, implying -1900 is the upper bound.
You cannot lose more than the seats you are defending.
Are you questioning Prof Trashers working out?
I know. I wasn't convinced by some of the counts of seats defended, I think some sites may have quoted seat counts as of yesterday rather than those returned in 2022 (and 2023, 2024 in the case of all-ups for boundary changes).
So, I can only think Thrasher is counting a higher number of Labour defences, but he is operating very close to the upper bound of the possible.
It just flashed upon Sky news that they have Labour defending 2556 seats.
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
I'm not sure 1864 is even possible is it? Weren't Labour only defending 2100 odd, so that implies a nearly 90% loss of seats (and no sneaky compensating gains).
Especially as Labour have 200 seats already, implying -1900 is the upper bound.
You cannot lose more than the seats you are defending.
Are you questioning Prof Trashers working out?
I know. I wasn't convinced by some of the counts of seats defended, I think some sites may have quoted seat counts as of yesterday rather than those returned in 2022 (and 2023, 2024 in the case of all-ups for boundary changes).
So, I can only think Thrasher is counting a higher number of Labour defences, but he is operating very close to the upper bound of the possible.
In the table on here a couple of days ago, Rallings and Thrasher were saying 2557 Labour defences.
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
I'm not sure 1864 is even possible is it? Weren't Labour only defending 2100 odd, so that implies a nearly 90% loss of seats (and no sneaky compensating gains).
Especially as Labour have 200 seats already, implying -1900 is the upper bound.
You cannot lose more than the seats you are defending.
Are you questioning Prof Trashers working out?
I know. I wasn't convinced by some of the counts of seats defended, I think some sites may have quoted seat counts as of yesterday rather than those returned in 2022 (and 2023, 2024 in the case of all-ups for boundary changes).
So, I can only think Thrasher is counting a higher number of Labour defences, but he is operating very close to the upper bound of the possible.
It just flashed upon Sky news that they have Labour defending 2556 seats.
OK. I think we have differences in start points between collators. 1864/2556 within the possible, though still looks somewhat toppish given the mix of results so far.
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
I'm not sure 1864 is even possible is it? Weren't Labour only defending 2100 odd, so that implies a nearly 90% loss of seats (and no sneaky compensating gains).
Especially as Labour have 200 seats already, implying -1900 is the upper bound.
You cannot lose more than the seats you are defending.
Are you questioning Prof Trashers working out?
I know. I wasn't convinced by some of the counts of seats defended, I think some sites may have quoted seat counts as of yesterday rather than those returned in 2022 (and 2023, 2024 in the case of all-ups for boundary changes).
So, I can only think Thrasher is counting a higher number of Labour defences, but he is operating very close to the upper bound of the possible.
In the table on here a couple of days ago, Rallings and Thrasher were saying 2557 Labour defences.
1864 losses suggests much worse to come them. Currently 240 losses off 459, so down just over 50%.
So they'd need to lose 77% of remaining seats to reach the proposed losses from here. Which sounds a little stretched.
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
I'm not sure 1864 is even possible is it? Weren't Labour only defending 2100 odd, so that implies a nearly 90% loss of seats (and no sneaky compensating gains).
Especially as Labour have 200 seats already, implying -1900 is the upper bound.
You cannot lose more than the seats you are defending.
Are you questioning Prof Trashers working out?
I know. I wasn't convinced by some of the counts of seats defended, I think some sites may have quoted seat counts as of yesterday rather than those returned in 2022 (and 2023, 2024 in the case of all-ups for boundary changes).
So, I can only think Thrasher is counting a higher number of Labour defences, but he is operating very close to the upper bound of the possible.
In the table on here a couple of days ago, Rallings and Thrasher were saying 2557 Labour defences.
Using that table, Labour would be between “Disappointment” and “Disaster”, the Tories would be on “Relief”.
Good morning all. Somewhat bemused by the enthusiasm being shown by newly elected councillors, especially Reform. You'd have thought they had won the lottery whereas a cursory investigation of a council's budget would show they're now responsible for potholes, bins and looking after people's grannies or special needs children.
Enjoy as they say
It's worse than that.
They have responsibility for those issues, but very little power, because so much of it is mandated by central government, which often uses those mandates as a way to cut spending without taking direct political responsibility.
So they have responsibility without much power, a terrible position to be in.
Unpaid.
So, when people complain about the low quality of councillors, given our current system, it's a miracle they are as good and dedicated as many of them are.
Very true. You should get a basic allowance of £7-8k but it's small beer and there's an awful lot to do to be effective outside council meetings.
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
Its a terrrrrrrible night for ...
... getting the counts done in a timely fashion.
We are on 237/1864 losses so far it seems.
Any Council that does not start its count on Thursday night should be abolished.
Even starting the count promptly isn't a cure-all.
Havering appears to be as frugal on vote counters as everything else, with 6/54 seats declared.
So far, Reform 4 (+4) Labour 2(-1) Cons 0(-1) Residents 0(-2).
Meanwhile, Goodwin's original nemesis opines:
I fear Labour people risk falling into an ecological fallacy visible from space when reacting to these results. Here is what is very clear in results so far: Labour are losing *seats* to Reform, but... Labour are losing *votes* to the Greens
That’s pretty much what Curtice was saying on the BBC as well. Reform are taking votes from Labour (and a lot of votes from the Tories of course) but the bigger loss of votes for Labour is to the left. This is going to influence the positioning Labour wants to adopt post Starmer.
One modest advantage for Starmer is that the story of these elections is probably going to move on before the full horror is disclosed because the counting is so shockingly slow and our concentration span for politics is so brief. I suspect Wales and Scotland will be bigger stories than this collapse across England.
From a glance at the map, Wigan staying red must be good news for Labour? With 42 out of 75 seats.
Hang on. Labour won 0 out the 25 seats up for election, losing 22 of the seats it held.
The other Labour results in met districts to declare: Dudley 1 held, 13 losses. Tameside 1 held, 16 losses. Oldham 3 held, 7 losses. Stockport 2 held, 5 losses. Salford 3 held, 13 losses. Still red. Bolton 2 held, 5 losses.
So don't let the results in London distract from the spectacular collapse that awaits today in the Met District heartlands. The fact that only 1/3rds of seats are up for election in many councils is irrelevant to the conclusions that MPs in those councils will be drawing about their own prospects were Starmer to stay.
Just woken up. So far looks broadly as predicted, except perhaps not the total calamity for Labour in London incoming? Outside London, things look dire for Labour and bad for the Tories. LDs did very well in SW London, but didn’t push far enough into Merton. Taking control of Portsmouth is encouraging, although politics there doesn’t necessarily read into the rest of Hampshire
Good morning all. Somewhat bemused by the enthusiasm being shown by newly elected councillors, especially Reform. You'd have thought they had won the lottery whereas a cursory investigation of a council's budget would show they're now responsible for potholes, bins and looking after people's grannies or special needs children.
Enjoy as they say
It's worse than that.
They have responsibility for those issues, but very little power, because so much of it is mandated by central government, which often uses those mandates as a way to cut spending without taking direct political responsibility.
So they have responsibility without much power, a terrible position to be in.
Unpaid.
So, when people complain about the low quality of councillors, given our current system, it's a miracle they are as good and dedicated as many of them are.
Yes, there needs to be much more devolution of power and tax-raising responsibility to local councils.
Meanwhile things like social care need to be centralised as they’re eating local budgets from the inside. I believe a Mrs May once suggested that, whatever happened to her?
Portsmouth has many advantages (presumably) but it's not what I'd describe as a LD stronghold
LibDems have a very strong campaigning track record in Portsmouth, and controlled the council previously, but got knocked back a bit during Labour’s rise pre-GE. I’d suspect the growth of Reform is actually helping them by splitting both Labour and Tory votes there?
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
Its a terrrrrrrible night for ...
... getting the counts done in a timely fashion.
We are on 237/1864 losses so far it seems.
Any Council that does not start its count on Thursday night should be abolished.
Even starting the count promptly isn't a cure-all.
Havering appears to be as frugal on vote counters as everything else, with 6/54 seats declared.
So far, Reform 4 (+4) Labour 2(-1) Cons 0(-1) Residents 0(-2).
Meanwhile, Goodwin's original nemesis opines:
I fear Labour people risk falling into an ecological fallacy visible from space when reacting to these results. Here is what is very clear in results so far: Labour are losing *seats* to Reform, but... Labour are losing *votes* to the Greens
Thrasher predicts 1864 losses for Labour, 599 losses for Tories. Far worse than what Curtice was talking about for Labour.
I'm not sure 1864 is even possible is it? Weren't Labour only defending 2100 odd, so that implies a nearly 90% loss of seats (and no sneaky compensating gains).
Especially as Labour have 200 seats already, implying -1900 is the upper bound.
You cannot lose more than the seats you are defending.
Are you questioning Prof Trashers working out?
I know. I wasn't convinced by some of the counts of seats defended, I think some sites may have quoted seat counts as of yesterday rather than those returned in 2022 (and 2023, 2024 in the case of all-ups for boundary changes).
So, I can only think Thrasher is counting a higher number of Labour defences, but he is operating very close to the upper bound of the possible.
In the table on here a couple of days ago, Rallings and Thrasher were saying 2557 Labour defences.
1864 losses suggests much worse to come them. Currently 240 losses off 459, so down just over 50%.
So they'd need to lose 77% of remaining seats to reach the proposed losses from here. Which sounds a little stretched.
It looks like Labour may not face the wipeout in London that some predicted? That should help their overall seat total, with overall losses running currently at around half, not the three quarters sometimes predicted?
Good morning all. Somewhat bemused by the enthusiasm being shown by newly elected councillors, especially Reform. You'd have thought they had won the lottery whereas a cursory investigation of a council's budget would show they're now responsible for potholes, bins and looking after people's grannies or special needs children.
Enjoy as they say
It's worse than that.
They have responsibility for those issues, but very little power, because so much of it is mandated by central government, which often uses those mandates as a way to cut spending without taking direct political responsibility.
So they have responsibility without much power, a terrible position to be in.
Unpaid.
So, when people complain about the low quality of councillors, given our current system, it's a miracle they are as good and dedicated as many of them are.
Councillors are mixed but on average i'd say they are actually high quality.
Good morning all. Somewhat bemused by the enthusiasm being shown by newly elected councillors, especially Reform. You'd have thought they had won the lottery whereas a cursory investigation of a council's budget would show they're now responsible for potholes, bins and looking after people's grannies or special needs children.
Enjoy as they say
It's worse than that.
They have responsibility for those issues, but very little power, because so much of it is mandated by central government, which often uses those mandates as a way to cut spending without taking direct political responsibility.
So they have responsibility without much power, a terrible position to be in.
Unpaid.
So, when people complain about the low quality of councillors, given our current system, it's a miracle they are as good and dedicated as many of them are.
Yes, there needs to be much more devolution of power and tax-raising responsibility to local councils.
Meanwhile things like social care need to be centralised as they’re eating local budgets from the inside. I believe a Mrs May once suggested that, whatever happened to her?
She became a cautionary tale and no one has seriously made an effort since - she only dared because she was polling in the high 40s.
I have one question.... How on earth have the Labour Westminster party or any future candidate to replace Keir Starmer got themselves into a position 22 months after an historic GE win to the point whereby one of the least liked Cabinet Ministers who is zealously persuing a deeply unpopular and disasterous Net Zero policy and who as a former Labour leader himself lost a GE now allowed him to get into a position whereby he is acting like a political Kingmaker when it comes to Keir Starmer's departure from No10?!
Seriously, if I wanted to replace Keir Starmer as Labour Leader and PM and reset Labour's political fortune in government before the next GE I would want to make sure that I ditched not only Ed Milliband's net zero policy direction but also I would want to ditch him from my Cabinet as well along with a few others to start a fresh. We are being briefed in the media that Ed Milliband now wants to replace Rachel Reeves as Chancellor, well that would be another politically huge mistake!
Take it from someone who lives in the North East of Scotland where Ed Milliband's stewardship of the Energy brief has had an absolutely devastating impact on the Oil & Gas Industry up here and the huge knock on effect it has had on the economy here whereby there are job losses being announced almost weekly. And this is under Labour's watch! I would not if I was a Labour politician up here mention that old political trope of Mrs Thatcher and the Miners! And I also think this became this Scottish Holyrood election which finally left politicians in Labour and the SNP who tried to bring up Thatcher in Scotland finding this usual old favourite finally falling on death ears and just totally out of touch with what is going on in politics today.
Good morning all. Somewhat bemused by the enthusiasm being shown by newly elected councillors, especially Reform. You'd have thought they had won the lottery whereas a cursory investigation of a council's budget would show they're now responsible for potholes, bins and looking after people's grannies or special needs children.
Enjoy as they say
It's worse than that.
They have responsibility for those issues, but very little power, because so much of it is mandated by central government, which often uses those mandates as a way to cut spending without taking direct political responsibility.
So they have responsibility without much power, a terrible position to be in.
Unpaid.
So, when people complain about the low quality of councillors, given our current system, it's a miracle they are as good and dedicated as many of them are.
Very true. You should get a basic allowance of £7-8k but it's small beer and there's an awful lot to do to be effective outside council meetings.
Comments
LAB: 35.1% (-11.8)
CON: 34.6% (-4.4)
GRN: 16.8% (+8.5)
REF: 5.6% (+5.6)
LDEM: 4.9% (-0.9)
IND: 3.0% (+3.0)
Labour HOLD.
Worcester Park South (Sutton) council election result:
LDEM: 46.3% (+11.6)
REF: 22.0% (+22.0)
CON: 20.8% (-29.0)
GRN: 7.3% (+7.3)
LAB: 3.6% (-11.9)
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.
No Kemi bounce.
🟢 GRN: 37.0% (+28.6)
🟠 LDM: 23.7% (-13.1)
➡️ RFM: 19.5% (+19.5)
🔴 LAB: 15.6% (-22.8)
🔵 CON: 4.2% (-7.2)
Greens GAIN from Labour
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/local-election-2026-results-live-33904758#entry3927762
https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/2052579244597805494?s=20
https://x.com/Brentwood_BC
Con Hold Harlow
5 gains from Labour, no Reform gains here.
https://x.com/KevinAl1976/status/2052580938140295400?s=20
Trouble is. Most didn't believe the predictions.
Portsmouth has many advantages (presumably) but it's not what I'd describe as a LD stronghold
"The Press Association, which is providing the data for our results tracker, says that after 10 fully declared council results, Labour has won only 17% of the seats it was defending"
(From the Guardian livestream)
🔴 LAB: 25 (-16)
➡️ RFM: 19 (+18)
⚪️ IND: 8 (=)
🔵 CON: 5 (-2)
The council had been under Labour control since 1979
🟢 GRN: 30.3% (+20.0)
🟠 LDM: 22.7% (-0.8)
➡️ REF: 22.2% (+15.9)
🔴 LAB: 16.1% (-31.1)
⚪️ OTH: 4.5% (-1.1)
🔵 CON: 4.3% (-3.0)
Green GAIN from Labour
They would have retained a majority but for councillors becoming Independent during the last couple of years, which tbh has been another symptom of Labour woes.
Why is Jericho in Oxford called Jericho?
According to Google's AI:
Jericho in Oxford is named after a 17th-century public house/farm known as "Jericho House". Located just outside the city walls, the name likely signified a "remote place" to travelers, referencing the biblical city of Jericho, while also serving as a refuge for those arriving after the town gates had closed
The Name's Origin: The name was first recorded in 1668 by Anthony Wood, who noted spending time at "Jericho Gardens" near the inn.A "Remote" Location: In the 17th century, the area was outside the city wall.
The name was adopted to represent a remote place, a common 17th-century term for places outside of a town's immediate jurisdiction. The "Jericho House" Pub:
The name is closely tied to a wayside inn, later known as The Jericho Tavern on Walton Street, which operated as a lodging for travellers who arrived too late for the city gates.
I wonder if the new Green councillor knows all that?
16 Reform, 2 Labour and 1 LD were returned.
By-thirds so a Labour hold at council level.
GRN: 33.4% (+15.6)
LAB: 33.1% (-18.4)
REF: 15.3% (+15.3)
CON: 12.6% (-4.5)
LDEM: 5.7% (-7.9)
Green GAIN from Labour.
Sky don't seem to have let Thrasher out the cupboard yet, be interested to see his take.
Enjoy as they say
For Wigan, by-thirds, Labour retain control.
LDEM: 42.6% (+42.6)
GRN: 20.9% (+13.0)
LAB: 18.3% (-57.1)
REF: 14.1% (+14.1)
CON: 4.2% (-12.6)
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Labour.
Charles Dickens (Portsmouth) council election result:
REF: 30.0% (+30.0)
LDEM: 27.4% (+11.7)
LAB: 21.0% (-29.3)
GRN: 17.0% (+17.0)
CON: 4.6% (-14.0)
Reform GAIN from Labour.
Con 29
Lab 28
Indy 1
Reform crushing it on Essex CC with over 20 on the overnight count
They have responsibility for those issues, but very little power, because so much of it is mandated by central government, which often uses those mandates as a way to cut spending without taking direct political responsibility.
So they have responsibility without much power, a terrible position to be in.
Unpaid.
So, when people complain about the low quality of councillors, given our current system, it's a miracle they are as good and dedicated as many of them are.
... getting the counts done in a timely fashion.
We are on 237/1864 losses so far it seems.
Any Council that does not start its count on Thursday night should be abolished.
Especially as Labour have 200 seats already, implying -1900 is the upper bound.
You cannot lose more than the seats you are defending.
Havering appears to be as frugal on vote counters as everything else, with 6/54 seats declared.
So far, Reform 4 (+4) Labour 2(-1) Cons 0(-1) Residents 0(-2).
Meanwhile, Goodwin's original nemesis opines:
I fear Labour people risk falling into an ecological fallacy visible from space when reacting to these results. Here is what is very clear in results so far:
Labour are losing *seats* to Reform, but...
Labour are losing *votes* to the Greens
Greens split the vote, Ref comes thru middle
https://bsky.app/profile/robfordmancs.bsky.social/post/3mlcntd2id22b
So, I can only think Thrasher is counting a higher number of Labour defences, but he is operating very close to the upper bound of the possible.
So they'd need to lose 77% of remaining seats to reach the proposed losses from here. Which sounds a little stretched.
Maybe not quite as disastrous as it could have been.
One modest advantage for Starmer is that the story of these elections is probably going to move on before the full horror is disclosed because the counting is so shockingly slow and our concentration span for politics is so brief. I suspect Wales and Scotland will be bigger stories than this collapse across England.
Hang on. Labour won 0 out the 25 seats up for election, losing 22 of the seats it held.
The other Labour results in met districts to declare:
Dudley 1 held, 13 losses.
Tameside 1 held, 16 losses.
Oldham 3 held, 7 losses.
Stockport 2 held, 5 losses.
Salford 3 held, 13 losses. Still red.
Bolton 2 held, 5 losses.
So don't let the results in London distract from the spectacular collapse that awaits today in the Met District heartlands. The fact that only 1/3rds of seats are up for election in many councils is irrelevant to the conclusions that MPs in those councils will be drawing about their own prospects were Starmer to stay.
Meanwhile things like social care need to be centralised as they’re eating local budgets from the inside. I believe a Mrs May once suggested that, whatever happened to her?
Greens doing well but underperforming against expectations. Lib Dems doing well and better than expectations.
The bloc theory is as its always been, a myth.
As a general rule former Labour voters who think ...
... 'Gaza' is a 'genocide' are going Green.
... 'Gazza' is a 'legend' are going Reform.
https://x.com/nemosalus/status/2052488263185695196
Seriously, if I wanted to replace Keir Starmer as Labour Leader and PM and reset Labour's political fortune in government before the next GE I would want to make sure that I ditched not only Ed Milliband's net zero policy direction but also I would want to ditch him from my Cabinet as well along with a few others to start a fresh. We are being briefed in the media that Ed Milliband now wants to replace Rachel Reeves as Chancellor, well that would be another politically huge mistake!
Take it from someone who lives in the North East of Scotland where Ed Milliband's stewardship of the Energy brief has had an absolutely devastating impact on the Oil & Gas Industry up here and the huge knock on effect it has had on the economy here whereby there are job losses being announced almost weekly. And this is under Labour's watch! I would not if I was a Labour politician up here mention that old political trope of Mrs Thatcher and the Miners! And I also think this became this Scottish Holyrood election which finally left politicians in Labour and the SNP who tried to bring up Thatcher in Scotland finding this usual old favourite finally falling on death ears and just totally out of touch with what is going on in politics today.