What can we extrapolate from the deadlock in UK local elections?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Keir Starmer told us Wandsworth was in the bag.

The left wing press (well the Mirror, the Independent and the BBC, the Guardian is too smart and has been wrong too many times to get carried away) was telling us Kensington was red yet the whole thing, nationwide, was a damp squib. If anything the Lib Dems won as UKIP (thankfully) collapsed.

Why?

Has Corbyn's (well Marxist McDonnell because we all know he's really in charge) strategy of promising everyone he happens to be speaking to, everything they want, at the taxpayers' expense , without reservation, or consideration for actual ability to deliver...

(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2017/05/27/jeremy-corbyn-promises-flexible-train-ticket-football-fans/)...

or even a hint of costing been found out?

The left should really be romping home right now (we all know children are dying in food banks as the NHS crumbles, immigrants are burnt at the stake and houses can never be bought) and yet nothing much is happening?

Why did Windrush have no impact and yet Barnet rejected Labour due to their sickening anti-semitism?

It's so confusing - explain someone

Well lib dem are floundering in national election due to poor leadership, but there's a lot of people who have more natural affinity to lib dem than either (current) labor or Tory. People who believe in free market (so they avoid labor) and voted remain (so they avoid Tory). Local election allow them to vote this way without feeling like there voting for a group of lame duck who never won anything in the first place. UKIP was always a one note party who would disappear after the vote on brexit, on top of that they've been doing everything to ensure they would implode.

ErrrorWayz:
Keir Starmer told us Wandsworth was in the bag.

By historical standards, the Tories in 2014 were already not far from the lowest number of councillors they have had in the last 50 years. Given there is a certain minimal level of support major parties have (~20-25% in general elections, for instance), they didn't have much they could realistically lose. So they didn't lose that much.

Even so, it's better than it could have been because they picked up the lion's share of seats presented by UKIP's terminal decline.

Best Labour result since 1971, and the headlines seem to be all about how Labour has failed.

You can pretty much extrapolate nothing. Local council elections have virtually nothing to do with the national parties, and are almost entirely based around "screw the Lib Dem's, they turned the Morrisons local that was due to open two minutes away into flats" local thinking, rather than what's going on on the national scene.

Catnip1024:
You can pretty much extrapolate nothing. Local council elections have virtually nothing to do with the national parties, and are almost entirely based around "screw the Lib Dem's, they turned the Morrisons local that was due to open two minutes away into flats" local thinking, rather than what's going on on the national scene.

You're right that many people will vote on local concerns over national, but clearly events at Westminister have a considerable impact on local elections.

The national incumbent party typically suffers a 15% drop in local elections but the 2017 general election threw that rule out the window. Hard to tell what's happening except UKIP are dead.

Seanchaidh:
Best Labour result since 1971, and the headlines seem to be all about how Labour has failed.

Yeah, but since when do athletes who get the silver treated as true winners?

Whole 'all or nothing' idea, even though people inevitably forget that party members don't always all agree in simult, and that those extra chairs in other hands means a government will have to compromise a hell of a lot more.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Seanchaidh:
Best Labour result since 1971, and the headlines seem to be all about how Labour has failed.

Yeah, but since when do athletes who get the silver treated as true winners?

Whole 'all or nothing' idea, even though people inevitably forget that party members don't always all agree in simult, and that those extra chairs in other hands means a government will have to compromise a hell of a lot more.

You ever been to Ireland? We still don't shut up about the 1990 world cup and we weren't exactly second place there... It's also the entire point of the movie Rocky. So yeah, athletes exceeding expectations and coming from way behind to almost, but not quite snatch a victory often gets treated as a win.we

Edit:
This is the funniest fucking thing in the world.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/boingboing.net/2018/05/05/redford-ilford.html/amp

Labour gained councillors. Not many, but it gained them on what was already a colossal lead in the number of councillors. They now have over a thousand more councillors than the Conservatives do IIRC.

It's frankly ludicrous to describe this as a failure for Labour. They made an enormous lead slightly larger again.

It is just not quite the victory some had expected. Several figures-- some opponents and some supporters of the Labour Party-- had let expectations grow to unsustainable levels, and then when these expectations were unfulfilled, it was described as a failure.

The whole thing is an exercise in spin.

The most fascinating part of this is seeing just how the parties spin their performance into a massive positive bragging right.

Liberal Democrats arguably have the most to celebrate, gaining 75 council seats and taking control of 4 new councils. So their spin is the expected 'the fightback is now on!' line.

The Conservatives spin largely seems to be based around holding steady and denying Labour any key victories. But they're a hideous incompetent omnishambles governing party so not being totally wiped out like they deserve is a win for them as far as they're concerned.

Labour has gone with the 'best result since 1971' line but it's been a problem for them that they were so hyped and promising such massive victories, like taking key Tory strongholds, which just didn't materialise no matter how you slice it.

UKIP had nothing and their only attempt at spinning a positive was a comparison to one of the deadliest diseases in human history. So... they're fucked.

Really all these elections tell us is that the Corbyn vs May debacle will continue for years to come as neither is able to really defeat the other. They're just locked in a permanent yet utterly boring deathgrip with each other that will never seem to fucking stop until Jacob Rees-Mogg or some other Brexit-loving shithead from the Tories wanders up and jams a big fuckoff knife deep into Theresa May's back to put her out of her misery.

Basically the Tories can't beat Labour properly, and Labour can't beat the Tories properly, so the only way it will end is if their own parties destroy their own leadership to break the stalemate.

ReservoirAngel:

Really all these elections tell us is that the Corbyn vs May debacle will continue for years to come as neither is able to really defeat the other.

You get that under May's leadership, the Tories lost their working majority, had to cut a deal with the DUP that's now crippling their EU position, and is dropping ministers left and right?

While Corbyn has had to contend with a media almost universally against him, stongholds New Labout had lost (Scotland, North of England to UKIP votes) and is closing in on the Tory lead despite the damage he's had to recover the party from?

In the space of 2 years it's shifted from "Corbyn is a joke but also a Commie IRA threat to Britannia" to "Huh, maybe I'll vote for him after all!"

May is a dead woman walking and is only kept to complete Brexit. Tories are not forgiving whereas Labour sometimes keep leaders who lose elections. When May leaves, this could break the deadlock except life won't be roses for the Tories. No matter what Brexit ends up being, lots of people will hate it and May's departure can't remove all blame from the party. I reckon May will go soft Brexit, infuriating hardcore Leavers.

But the Tory party didn't become one of the most successful political parties in the world by ignoring their internal crises. I reckon Gove is being groomed as the next Tory leader. With impeccable Brexit credentials and in a ministry not linked to it, hard Leavers will assign him no blame for the Brexit shitshow. Whilst he has the charm of a lizard, the green credentials he's cultivating will be seen as attractive to floating voters.

That is, I reckon the next general election will be Corbyn vs Gove in the context of a recently signed soft Brexit. Oh god, it'll be another hung Parliament.

Ninjamedic:

In the space of 2 years it's shifted from "Corbyn is a joke but also a Commie IRA threat to Britannia" to "Huh, maybe I'll vote for him after all!"

My favourite was a two page smear campaign by The Times about him riding around on a "Maoist" bike and how he lives in an ugly flat. You have to love British newspapers ...

I will say, "Maocycle" should have been meme worthy.

ErrrorWayz:
It's so confusing - explain someone

It's probably confusing because the "facts" you state in your OP to make a conclusion from aren't, well, facts.

Ninjamedic:

In the space of 2 years it's shifted from "Corbyn is a joke but also a Commie IRA threat to Britannia" to "Huh, maybe I'll vote for him after all!"

And just imagine where Labour could be if they were led by someone with similar views, but who wasn't comically ineffective in certain important ways. I think Corbyn would have problems ordering food in a restaurant, never mind ordering his party to sort its shit out pronto.

I mean, take this anti-Semitism thing. Labour both has a problem with anti-Semites in one sense, and yet it also wildly overstated. There are definitely anti-Semites in the party, and they need to be weeded out from any positions of authority, and Labour has not done a good job of it recently. However, there's no reason to assume Labour has anti-Semitism isues significantly worse than anywhere else in the UK, including other parties like the Tories. In fact, there are surveys that suggest anti-Semitism is less common in Labour than the Tories.

https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf

The right-wing has latched on anti-Semitism as a means to defame Labour: it's the most credible form of racism to attack Labour over, after all. Labour therefore needed a fast and hard response, not just for the justice of fighting anti-Semitism, but also for perception with the public. What they got from Corbyn was a gentle, meandering, and muddled one which allowed its enemies to make hay.

Agema:

And just imagine where Labour could be if they were led by someone with similar views, but who wasn't comically ineffective in certain important ways. I think Corbyn would have problems ordering food in a restaurant, never mind ordering his party to sort its shit out pronto.

He has a certain self-destructive lack of strategy sometimes, yes.

That said, it's not really that much more pronounced in him than in most party leaders. If the same issue were to crop up for May or Cable, it might give them a single bad headline, and that may well be the end of it. The very same mud sticks to certain people much more so than others.

This leads me to believe that if Corbyn had responded with more decisiveness to this particular scandal, it would just have been something else.

Local elections don't really matter. These councillors and mayor don't control policy and all they do is increase taxes and decrease services. It makes no difference at the local level who wins.

But as long as Corbyn leads labour I'll vote just to keep him and his party away from power. He's the leader of the most racist labour party in living memory, Tony Blair won't endorse him and I'm terrified of the ruin he'll bring upon this country if he has the chance. Much as I loathe Hunt, Gove et all, May is 100x better than Corbyn and I'll vote for her. I'm probably a lib dem, but they couldn't win a Biggest Noob contest if they were the only people competing.

ErrrorWayz:
The left should really be romping home right now (we all know children are dying in food banks as the NHS crumbles, immigrants are burnt at the stake and houses can never be bought) and yet nothing much is happening?

Why did Windrush have no impact and yet Barnet rejected Labour due to their sickening anti-semitism?

It's so confusing - explain someone

Because Barnet as a borough has a high proportion of Jews living in it and the labour party is the most anti-semitic public body at the moment. Lord Sugar stepped down as a labour peer, most traditionally left Jews are abandoning labour in droves and they don't care. Jews are maybe 400-500k UK-wide, so they can alienate the community and give no f**ks about the couple of seats they lose. There are more muslim voters by number and seats so they have them instead.

Those other issues have no bearing on Local Elections. Local elections are for council tax, bin collections, local public services and amenities, etc. Maybe it's reflective of a broader sentiment to a degree, but Parliamentary issues aren't what people voted on last week.

KingsGambit:
He's the leader of the most racist labour party in living memory, Tony Blair won't endorse him and I'm terrified of the ruin he'll bring upon this country if he has the chance.

I wouldn't want an endorsement from a war criminal who expanded mass surveillance if I was left wing.

Also, you did see the numerous reports (in particular, the one Agema linked) that show Labour is actually has the lowest levels of bigotry of the major parties? What do you have to say about the Tory Party's traditional Orange Loyalist alliances and their blase attitude to the GFA? Or May's repeated statements and actions to further an anti-immigrant agenda based on xenophobia?

Ninjamedic:

KingsGambit:
He's the leader of the most racist labour party in living memory, Tony Blair won't endorse him and I'm terrified of the ruin he'll bring upon this country if he has the chance.

I wouldn't want an endorsement from a war criminal who expanded mass surveillance if I was left wing.

Also, you did see the numerous reports (in particular, the one Agema linked) that show Labour is actually has the lowest levels of bigotry of the major parties? What do you have to say about the Tory Party's traditional Orange Loyalist alliances and their blase attitude to the GFA? Or May's repeated statements and actions to further an anti-immigrant agenda based on xenophobia?

There's no evidence of Tony Blair being a war criminal, so you're using hyperbole to make a silly point.

I don't see any bigotry from the other parties, not to the extent of labour. Any report that says it's the "lowest levels of...the major parties" is a load of steaming horseshit and the paper it's written on is worthless. There may be an anti-immigrant sentiment, and I don't doubt some of it may well be related to xenophobia, however the overwhelming majority is not. It's economic, social and cultural. The british people do not want a million muslim refugees draining our already crippled social services, education system, housing system, raping their daughters, bombing their children, stabbing their police officers, ramming their civilians and radicalising their sons. Anti-immigration is a valid stance grounded on reality-based facts and isn't strictly xenophobia.

I'll take May 10x over to keep Corbyn out. I'm liberal, but the left are vile and reprehensible, set about ruining society.

KingsGambit:
There's no evidence of Tony Blair being a war criminal, so you're using hyperbole to make a silly point.

So Chilcot didn't happen in your world, good to know.

I don't see any bigotry from the other parties, not to the extent of labour. Any report that says it's the "lowest levels of...the major parties" is a load of steaming horseshit and the paper it's written on is worthless.

There may be an anti-immigrant sentiment, and I don't doubt some of it may well be related to xenophobia, however the overwhelming majority is not. It's economic, social and cultural. The british people do not want a million muslim refugees draining our already crippled social services, education system, housing system, raping their daughters, bombing their children, stabbing their police officers, ramming their civilians and radicalising their sons. Anti-immigration is a valid stance grounded on reality-based facts and isn't strictly xenophobia.

Care to supply any sources or citations as a basis for this apocalyptic view of a Corbyn Labour then?

I'll take May 10x over to keep Corbyn out. I'm liberal, but the left are vile and reprehensible, set about ruining society.

And the right are just the upright and sensible defenders of British Society then? Oh I;m sorry, I forgot Us Irish are supposed to keep our mouths shut.

Ninjamedic:
So Chilcot didn't happen in your world, good to know.

Was he convicted of anything? No.

Ninjamedic:
Care to supply any sources or citations as a basis for this apocalyptic view of a Corbyn Labour then?

No, I was just replying to a forum post. I'm not interested in a lengthy back and forth political debate on an internet forum with a stranger where no amount of sources/proof will change their mind anyway. It's a beautiful sunny day outside and I'm not giving that up to discuss bloody Corbyn, moron Abbot and the rest of their bigot cronies.

Ninjamedic:
And the right are just the upright and sensible defenders of British Society then?

No, the Right are dicks too. But I'd take them over the left, that's how bad it is. I'm a liberal and I have to vote right because the left are so far left that I have more in common with Tory Tossers who I loathe. Hunt is ruining the NHS, Gove ruined education and I'd STILL choose them over Corbyn's Labour, that's how bad they are.

Ninjamedic:
Oh I;m sorry, I forgot Us Irish are supposed to keep our mouths shut.

?

KingsGambit:
It's a beautiful sunny day outside and I'm not giving that up to discuss bloody Corbyn, moron Abbot and the rest of their bigot cronies.

Then why not just do that in the first place then? This is a discussion board after all.

No, the Right are dicks too. But I'd take them over the left, that's how bad it is. I'm a liberal and I have to vote right because the left are so far left that I have more in common with Tory Tossers who I loathe. Hunt is ruining the NHS, Gove ruined education and I'd STILL choose them over Corbyn's Labour, that's how bad they are.

Given you just dodged my point about NI, I have to ask, what exactly is it about Labour that scares you so much you're willing to give the Tories a pass for everything they've done so far?

Agema:
You're right that many people will vote on local concerns over national, but clearly events at Westminister have a considerable impact on local elections.

There are certain correlations, yes, but I would be interested to know how many people vote different ways at local and national level. I think it would be a surprisingly high number.

It doesn't seem to have shifted the political landscape too much. In local elections, Corbyn actually did best in 2016, when Labour's projected national share of the vote was one point ahead of the Tories'.

If there's a chance of another hung parliament in the next general election (although 4 years is a long time), there might be a similar Tory campaign to what they did in 2015 with them saying 'Labour will be propped up by the Lib Dems and SNP', which seemed to work in the marginals and ended up giving the Tories a small majority.

Although, despite what the press says, turn out is so low in local elections I'm still not sure how much you can infer from it.

KingsGambit:

I don't see any bigotry from the other parties, not to the extent of labour.

Really?

We're discussing a Conservative Party...

-- whose councillor openly advocated the death penalty for homosexuality;
-- which chose to reinstate a councillor who compared Asian people to dogs;
-- which instigated a dog-whistle racist campaign against Sadiq Khan in the mayoral contest, including spurious claims based on his ethnicitiy;
-- whose Prime Minister saw fit to dispatch vans bearing the message "Go Home" around the country, with no further context, above a picture of various foreign people;
-- whose MPs voted to deny equal marriage, and whose MPs voted for the institution of Section 28, banning the mere mention of homosexuality in schools.

The Labour Party has a problem with anti-Semitism, definitely. But not for a single second should anybody entertain the notion that the Conservative Party does not have a far longer, far more severe history of extreme bigotry and prejudice. It wears it on its sleeve. It is steeped in bigotry.

I can't even take this claim seriously, and frankly, neither should anybody.

KingsGambit:
But as long as Corbyn leads labour I'll vote just to keep him and his party away from power. He's the leader of the most racist labour party in living memory, Tony Blair won't endorse him and I'm terrified of the ruin he'll bring upon this country if he has the chance. Much as I loathe Hunt, Gove et all, May is 100x better than Corbyn and I'll vote for her. I'm probably a lib dem, but they couldn't win a Biggest Noob contest if they were the only people competing.

Who did you vote for in the last general election if you don't like the main parties and you don't think the Lib Dems are worth voting for, just out of curiosity? Did you go Lib Dem anyway? Just tell me it's none of my business if you don't want to say.

I'm not British myself, but I follow British politics, so what I say is going to come as an outsider.
My biggest takeaway from this is that UKIP has no future as a post-Brexit party. Over 120 losses.
Right now I'm still debating how much I should use this as a gauge for Labour. If anyone wants to make their case to me, I'd like to listen to this. (This isn't sarcastic, I legitimately haven't made up my mind yet).

CM156:

Right now I'm still debating how much I should use this as a gauge for Labour. If anyone wants to make their case to me, I'd like to listen to this. (This isn't sarcastic, I legitimately haven't made up my mind yet).

I don't really think the council election changes very much for Labour at all. They come out with more councillors than they went in, and they have the most by a wide margin... but this represents only a relatively small change from the situation beforehand. 30-or-so councillors gained is small potatoes.

In terms of general election chances, the two main parties are essentially neck-and-neck (though most recent polls have given Labour a lead, it's in the low single-digits, and others have shown them on exactly the same). People do a lot of cross-voting in the UK (voting one way in the locals, and voting another in the general). Labour is by far the most successful party in the local elections, with over 1,000 more councillors than anyone else, but only neck-and-neck in polls on general election voting intentions.

Silvanus:

CM156:

Right now I'm still debating how much I should use this as a gauge for Labour. If anyone wants to make their case to me, I'd like to listen to this. (This isn't sarcastic, I legitimately haven't made up my mind yet).

I don't really think the council election changes very much for Labour at all. They come out with more councillors than they went in, and they have the most by a wide margin... but this represents only a relatively small change from the situation beforehand. 30-or-so councillors gained is small potatoes.

In terms of general election chances, the two main parties are essentially neck-and-neck (though most recent polls have given Labour a lead, it's in the low single-digits, and others have shown them on exactly the same). People do a lot of cross-voting in the UK (voting one way in the locals, and voting another in the general). Labour is by far the most successful party in the local elections, with over 1,000 more councillors than anyone else, but only neck-and-neck in polls on general election voting intentions.

So would you think it fair to call this a "qualified success" for Labour? I'm also wondering how much of the UKIP vote any of the major parties might absorb in the next general election?

CM156:

Silvanus:

CM156:

Right now I'm still debating how much I should use this as a gauge for Labour. If anyone wants to make their case to me, I'd like to listen to this. (This isn't sarcastic, I legitimately haven't made up my mind yet).

I don't really think the council election changes very much for Labour at all. They come out with more councillors than they went in, and they have the most by a wide margin... but this represents only a relatively small change from the situation beforehand. 30-or-so councillors gained is small potatoes.

In terms of general election chances, the two main parties are essentially neck-and-neck (though most recent polls have given Labour a lead, it's in the low single-digits, and others have shown them on exactly the same). People do a lot of cross-voting in the UK (voting one way in the locals, and voting another in the general). Labour is by far the most successful party in the local elections, with over 1,000 more councillors than anyone else, but only neck-and-neck in polls on general election voting intentions.

So would you think it fair to call this a "qualified success" for Labour? I'm also wondering how much of the UKIP vote any of the major parties might absorb in the next general election?

UKIP have kind of been dead at a national level since the Brexit vote, since the sole reason for party's existence has now gone. The local elections results won't change the lay of the land any more than it did in 2017. The vote already has been absorbed to the extent of winning national seats, in my opinion. The Conservatives, for their part, were the primary beneficiaries of the collapse in the UKIP vote - 45% of 2015 UKIP voters went over to the Tories in 2017, while just 11% of it went to Labour.

Silvanus:

KingsGambit:

I don't see any bigotry from the other parties, not to the extent of labour.

Really?

We're discussing a Conservative Party...

-- whose councillor openly advocated the death penalty for homosexuality;
-- which chose to reinstate a councillor who compared Asian people to dogs;
-- which instigated a dog-whistle racist campaign against Sadiq Khan in the mayoral contest, including spurious claims based on his ethnicitiy;
-- whose Prime Minister saw fit to dispatch vans bearing the message "Go Home" around the country, with no further context, above a picture of various foreign people;
-- whose MPs voted to deny equal marriage, and whose MPs voted for the institution of Section 28, banning the mere mention of homosexuality in schools.

The Labour Party has a problem with anti-Semitism, definitely. But not for a single second should anybody entertain the notion that the Conservative Party does not have a far longer, far more severe history of extreme bigotry and prejudice. It wears it on its sleeve. It is steeped in bigotry.

I can't even take this claim seriously, and frankly, neither should anybody.

I think you're forgetting the fact that conservatives aren't concerned about equality, fairness or being nice. Its not a core value. Not being a bigot is a Labour value. Holding a Tory up to that standard wont work.

It's similar to some people who called out SJWs for not tolerating them (for their bigoted speech). It doesnt matter that they were bigots first. Its not their core value. It is a core value of SJWs and thus calling them out is more effective.

KingsGambit:
...and the labour party is the most anti-semitic public body at the moment.

Is it actually the most anti-Semitic, or has selective media reporting created the perception that it is?

KingsGambit:
The british people do not want a million muslim refugees draining our already crippled social services, education system, housing system, raping their daughters, bombing their children, stabbing their police officers, ramming their civilians and radicalising their sons. Anti-immigration is a valid stance grounded on reality-based facts and isn't strictly xenophobia.

You're right, anti-immigration sentiment isn't necessarily xenophobia. Unfortunately, you managed to express anti-immigration in bile-dripping xenophobia right there.

There are plenty non-xenophobic arguments against immigration. However, you need to do it by not defaming entire demographic groups of foreigners - which is after all pretty much a working definition of xenophobia.

Agema:
which is after all pretty much a working definition of xenophobia.

Based on your post, you don't actually know what xenophobia means. But it's typical to just throw around grand accusations at people you don't know. Go ahead and do the nazi thing, it's almost all of page one and no godwin's law yet.

Agema:
Is it actually the most anti-Semitic, or has selective media reporting created the perception that it is?

It really, actually is.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here