Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ News and Politics _ 2016 Regional Elections
Posted by: Silas 23rd June 2015, 06:36 PM
Thought it may be an idea to have a separate thread for the various regional elections in 2016 rather than the main UK thread.
In less than 11 months, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be voting for a new Parliament, London will replace Boris and there will be Local Authority elections across the country.
2 weeks ago TNS released the first Holyrood poll since the general election and it makes for utterly astonishing reading.
Constituency: SNP - 60%, Labour - 19%, Tory - 15%, Lib Dem - 3%, Others - 3%
List - SNP - 50%, Labour 19%, Tory - 14%, Green 10%, Lib Dem - 5%, scUmKIP - 2%, Others - 0%
Shoving that into the Scotlandvotes.com calculator gives the SNP 73 seats (+4, 3 List, 70 constit), Labour 25 seats (-12, all List), Tory 17 seats (+2, somehow. 2 Constit, 15 List), Greens 10 (+8, all list), Lib Dem 4 (-1, Shetland Constit, 3 List), scUmKIP 0, Others 0 (-1)
Would be a spectacular victory for the Greens to see them become the proper 4th party of Scottish Politics. The little calculator thingy I used has Eastwood going Tory which I don't really buy that much to be honest. Even though they are habitually 2nd place, I can't see Labour voters voting Tory to keep out the SNP.
Posted by: Qassändra 23rd June 2015, 06:44 PM
My predictions:
WALES: Labour minority / Tory/UKIP coalition
SCOTLAND: SNP majority off constituency seats alone
LONDON: Tessa if selected / Zac Goldsmith if not; Labour largest on Assembly again
Posted by: Silas 23rd June 2015, 07:03 PM
I'd mostly agree with your predictions there Tyron.
The prospect of a Tory/UKIP coalition ruling Wales is rather a worrying one as it doesn't seem to be unrealistic. I think that a Plaid/Labour coalition in charge of Wales is a slightly more likely outcome of next May as I imagine that both PC and Labour's numbers should just about hold on. UKIP will make massive in roads there though which is frightening.
First poll agrees with you on Scotland as only 65 seats are required for a majority and after last month taking 65/73 constituencies doesn't look unreasonable. It will be interesting to see in places like the North East if the SNP manage to break the AMS system again. Last time all NE seats went SNP so in theory they should have had no list seats. However they have a NE list MSP because so many people voted SNP to make it representative they actually needed that extra seat.
Based on May, London should be voting Labour for the assembly. Not sure on the mayor yet as that depends who makes the cut.
Posted by: Qassändra 23rd June 2015, 07:08 PM
I don't rule out a Labour comeback, but I'd rather not go through last month again any time soon so I'm going to default to worst case scenario assumptions from now on unless I see some receipts making anything better look inevitable.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 23rd June 2015, 09:34 PM
WALES: Labour minority / Tory/UKIP coalition
SCOTLAND: SNP majority off constituency seats alone
LONDON: Tessa if selected / Zac Goldsmith if not; Labour largest on Assembly again
You don't think KHAAAAAAAAN could beat Goldsmith?
Posted by: Qassändra 23rd June 2015, 09:37 PM
Nah. I'd love it if he could, but if they're polling at 50-50 now before the Evening Standard have fired everything they've got at him, he doesn't stand a chance. Plus the fucking Greens are whispering that they might officially endorse Goldsmith for second preferences and after last month I don't want to put myself through another bloody year of 'oooooh, the progressive majority!!!!' myths.
So yeah, I'm not taking chances - the Standard have all but endorsed Tessa already so it'd be a hell of a u-turn for them to whack out the howitzers for her (at worst they'll probably just do a non-endorsement), and pretty much all the candidates are saying roughly the same thing so I'll take a win that looks like it'd be more in the bag.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 23rd June 2015, 10:01 PM
*cough* Northern Ireland have their Assembly elections in 2016 too.
Posted by: Silas 23rd June 2015, 10:05 PM
*cough* its been there all along *cough*
Posted by: Danny 23rd June 2015, 10:06 PM
I would probably vote for Zac Goldsmith over Tessa Jowell if I was in London, tbh. If Tory policies are going to be delivered by a Labour candidate anyway, it would be better to have the real deal who atleast seems capable of occasionally thinking outside the box.
Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd June 2015, 10:11 PM
So yeah, I'm not taking chances - the Standard have all but endorsed Tessa already so it'd be a hell of a u-turn for them to whack out the howitzers for her (at worst they'll probably just do a non-endorsement), and pretty much all the candidates are saying roughly the same thing so I'll take a win that looks like it'd be more in the bag.
When have the Tory press ever shied away from making a complete u-turn? They regularly work on the assumption that people won't notice a complete about turn.
Posted by: Danny 23rd June 2015, 10:24 PM
So yeah, I'm not taking chances - the Standard have all but endorsed Tessa already so it'd be a hell of a u-turn for them to whack out the howitzers for her (at worst they'll probably just do a non-endorsement), and pretty much all the candidates are saying roughly the same thing so I'll take a win that looks like it'd be more in the bag.
So opinion polls are the gospel truth when they show lefties doing badly, but pointless tests of name recognition when they show Blairites doing badly?
Posted by: Qassändra 23rd June 2015, 10:29 PM
No, because the majority of the candidates in London are fairly well known? You're also comparing apples with oranges here - these are head to head polls, not 'who do you want to win the selection'. If a poll came out now that showed Andy Burnham/Yvette Cooper with a 15 point lead over David Cameron/Boris and barely any don't knows that'd be that settled right there.
Posted by: Danny 23rd June 2015, 10:33 PM
Sadiq Khan, really? The gap between how well-known Tessa Jowell and Sadiq Khan are, is surely MUCH bigger than the gap between how well-known Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall were at the start of the leadership contest.
(Though I think the polls do reflect that Tessa would have a better chance than Sadiq, simply because she reminds people of the Olympics.)
Posted by: Qassändra 23rd June 2015, 10:34 PM
Deary me. And what would a Tory ever do about London's housing crisis? Particularly a bloody green Tory. Both Tessa and Sadiq have solid housebuilding plans (*the* number one issue in London right now) and have spoken out on the huge inequalities and bainlieuisation in London. What the fuck would Zac Goldsmith do for ordinary Londoners other than whinge a bit about the environment and Heathrow and let things carry on as they are? Faux-provocative statements like this endorsing the status quo stand totally on the side of the oppressor.
Posted by: Qassändra 23rd June 2015, 10:42 PM
(Though I think the polls do reflect that Tessa would have a better chance than Sadiq, simply because she reminds people of the Olympics.)
There's obviously a gap, but with Sadiq, unlike Liz he does at least have something anyone would have known him for before now in London, as he's been Shadow Minister for the Capital for the last four years (which means he's gotten some regional coverage). Again though, it's difficult to gauge the difference. We're comparing selection polling versus 'how would you vote if x and y were the candidate?' polling. The only difference we can tell is that Don't Know goes up 4 points when comparing between Tessa and Zac and Sadiq and Zac.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 29th June 2015, 04:39 PM
Having never lived there, it's hardly accurate for me to say but I get the feeling that Sadiq is fairly well known in London. Prominent local MP, which counts for a lot. He's definitely better known in the city than Kendall is nationally.
Posted by: popchartfreak 29th June 2015, 06:33 PM
Both parties have assured voters they will build hundreds if thousands of houses in manifestos for elections. To date, to say they have not quite managed to fulfill promises is a little bit of an understatement. To say they've done their utmost to keep housing prices up so the banks don't go under and also those foolish enough to get into mortgage debt by borrowing too much wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration...
or maybe they are just crap at delivering promises.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 29th June 2015, 08:32 PM
or maybe they are just crap at delivering promises.
The national picture is different, but below that - and particularly where you've got an elected position wielding as much power as the Mayor - it's far easier to put your money where your mouth is. Cameron might parrot on about building more homes but he won't do a lot about it and it would be difficult even if he wanted to. Goldsmith as Mayor would have all the levers in the world but he wouldn't want to pull them.
Posted by: Qassändra 29th June 2015, 10:41 PM
This, basically. Housing's devolved - so when Tessa says she'll set up an authority equivalent to TFL to be responsible for planning housing to reach these targets, or Sadiq says that he'd enforce it so every house sold off under right to buy in London would have to be replaced with a newly built council house, they actually have the power to come through on those pledges, rather than setting pie in the sky 'we want this in all the country!' targets of several hundred thousand.
Meanwhile, Zac would whimper on about how carbon emissions mean actually we shouldn't build more housing because the rare MINCING NEWTS OF KEW might be a bit upset and stop shagging so prolifically, so if the poor could be ever so considerate as to SOD OFF.
Posted by: popchartfreak 30th June 2015, 01:04 PM
Councils are already supposed to build new council houses for every one sold - which is fine when the massively cut price Right To Buy's bring in more money than it costs to build a house, but in practise that rarely happens. It's still basically selling off assets at half price to benefit individuals, and replacing them with half or less the number of council properties ever smaller and ever squeezed into smaller and smaller spaces.
Labour should be ending Right To Buy in London and everywhere else because it's insane logic, never mind the new ludicrous tax-payer-supported Right To Buy on Housing Associations. Money out of council coffers that could build twice as many houses just by selling them in the private sector at actual market prices as and when they become empty - which I also don't agree with, but at least it's financially sound and you get an extra property for the country out of it at zero cost. Ish.
Labour are just frightened to say what's financially nuts scared of upsetting every voter on every issue, no courage of what should be their convictions. Tories know they are buying Tory voters courtesy of the tax-payer.
NIMBY's use anything to avoid any lowering of their property values, any argument, anywhere, and unless politicians are prepared to stand up to them houses will never get built. That said, I'm a green-friendly tree-hugger at heart, and if there's a good reason NOT to build on land conservation-wise, I wouldnt necessarily see it as something to be over-ruled if there are alternatives sites available, say farm-land, closed industrial sites, or just high-rise apartments - not ideal to live in but better than being cramped in a bedroom with your parents till you're 40.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th June 2015, 01:39 PM
Again, you're switching to a different argument. The subject was whether or not their promises meant anything.
Posted by: popchartfreak 30th June 2015, 07:41 PM
OK. Short version. Words not actions. I don't believe any politician will do anything other than dance around the edges of the subject so it matters not who you vote for, and local government is powerless. London is special, apparently. How marvellous for non-Londoners.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 30th June 2015, 08:16 PM
This mayoral election is going to make me feel really bitter. I can't imagine how the non-Mancunians will feel...
Posted by: Qassändra 30th June 2015, 08:53 PM
All wonderful, but not especially relevant to assessing the worth of promises for a mayoralty that actually does have power (but has had a mayor for the last seven years who couldn't be less concerned with using any of it).
Posted by: popchartfreak 1st July 2015, 09:12 AM
in terms of total new affordable housing some might argue John Major's era did best for London, that Ken under-delivered on his stated aims even with the benefit of support of a Labour government (and a lot of that was Olympics-related spin-off), and that Boris/London reflected the national decline in affordable housing when Labour's policy was ended....
or might not argue that, of course.
Posted by: Silas 6th July 2015, 05:55 PM
Scottish Government are having a cabinet meeting in Cupar this evening. Should be an interesting event!!!
Posted by: Qassändra 15th August 2015, 10:43 AM
Kezia Dugdale elected the sixth leader of Scottish Labour in eight years. Here's hoping she can make it to 2021 at least.
Posted by: Silas 15th August 2015, 12:09 PM
She does seem to have more intelligence than her Rival who seemed to think that he would be first minister in May. Despite the fact that the SNP are still polling at 60% and Labour are barely polling higher than the tories... Delusional.
I do quite like Kezia though and it means all three of our major parties are female led.
Posted by: f1mad 15th March 2016, 12:16 PM
Things this side of the border are getting farcical. It's absolutely hilarious to watch Scottish Labour in particular right now.
They have just announced a smart ticketing system for Scotland's public transport network. No word yet on if this is the same smart ticket as the "Saltire Card" that was announced in 2012 or the smart ticketing that was made an integral part of the new Scotrail franchise and is currently being rolled out by Scotrail (that is compatible with the clockwork orange)
The other day they committed the UK government to buying stakes in the North Sea Oil and Gas sector to protect jobs despite the fact that the UK Labour Party they committed this policy to having no chance of implementing it until 2020 at the earliest just in time for the next Scottish election.
I'm all for innovative solutions and new ideas for the country I've grown up in but let's not reheat a current SNP policy that's currently being implemented (even if it's slower and less ambitious than it should be) as that's just lazy. Also lets not commit yourself to policies that you can't implement without the help of a uk government that doesn't exist.
It's really no surprise that current polls have Labour and the Tories in a close battle for 2nd
Posted by: Suedehead2 15th March 2016, 02:04 PM
Scottish Labour are obviously trying the tactic that has worked well for Boris J***s*n (sorry, I can't subject my laptop to typing his full name). He has successfully got the credit for the London bicycle rental scheme, despite the fact that it was initiated by Ken Livingstone, after it had first been suggested by the Lib Dems. Similarly, the Tories have managed to get all the credit for various Lib Dem policies introduced under the coalition, in particular increasing the personal allowance. The only coalition move attributed to the Lib Dems is the tuition fee policy, which most Lib Dem backbenchers opposed.
Posted by: popchartfreak 15th March 2016, 05:31 PM
It almost sounds as if the scruples of the major party politicians are fluid. As if they'll say anything to get power at any cost. I suggest broadcasters start replacing the soundtrack of any politician who re-invents history in his or her chosen image with Sammy Davis Jr's I've Gotta Be Me, just to underline the fluidity we are viewing.....
Posted by: Steve201 17th April 2016, 11:24 AM
So does anyone think that the Tories will come second in Scotland on May 5th?
I would say that Labour would be better to focus on their pro-Union aspects to set them apart from the nationalists!
Posted by: Silas 17th April 2016, 04:09 PM
That just plays into the SNPs rhetoric of them being the same as the Tories. The best thing for Scottish Labour to do would be to avoid the constitution entirely, which means what Kez will be doing is trying to pass off other parties policies as her own while screaming about IndyRef2 at the decibels of a 3 year old mid tantrum.
I think second and third will be a tough battle. Especially as 4th is looking like a strong showing for the Greens which is squeezing the middle a little more.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 17th April 2016, 05:19 PM
The middle party's not that squeezed, it's polling at nearly 50%!
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2016, 05:24 PM
It's almost as if having a charismatic leader and gesturing left while in practice being centreground is a killer app in politics.
Posted by: Silas 17th April 2016, 05:50 PM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nicola-sturgeons-groundbreaking-pledge-give-7771909#sAyy15U0jEJvYJUa.97
We're bring the BabyBox to these shores! At last!! It's such a smart and nifty little idea from Finland that it really should have spread across the whole continent long before now.
Posted by: Harve 17th April 2016, 11:53 PM
We're bring the BabyBox to these shores! At last!! It's such a smart and nifty little idea from Finland that it really should have spread across the whole continent long before now.
If that doesn't promote some parody articles tomorrow morning then I'm unsubscribing from the Daily Mash.
Posted by: Danny 18th April 2016, 05:49 PM
I'm in awe of how Scottish Labour seem determined to plumb new depths with each of their leaders. Whenever I've seen the latest one get interviewed, she seems to have come straight from the Liz Kendall mould of "out of depth primary-school teacher unable to control the class". Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson atleast seem to have some self-belief and a bit of gravitas, whatever you think of their policies.
Personally I think SLAB would be better off going back to Johann Lamont.
Posted by: Qassändra 18th April 2016, 08:20 PM
After THAT exit...
Posted by: Silas 18th April 2016, 08:25 PM
I would like Johann back. Have a lot of respect for her as a leader of SLab. Every once since has been a hot mess. It's a sad state of affairs that Kez is actually the best of the potentials.
Posted by: Harve 18th April 2016, 10:16 PM
I must not've been paying attention at the time...
I wouldn't personally know how to resign if I was Scottish Labour leader, but her reasoning at least seems pretty on point.
Posted by: Qassändra 18th April 2016, 10:37 PM
It may have been the most lethal resignation statement ever. Obviously not the cause of last year in and of itself, but it's probably added a good ten years to any possible recovery. In one shot it pretty much validated that 'only the SNP can stand up for Scotland' line.
Posted by: Danny 18th April 2016, 10:51 PM
To be fair, it's an open secret that she was being hounded out of her job by Jim Murphy and his acolytes, who (as usual with that faction of the party) were only thinking about their own personal positions rather than points of principle.
I always thought she was rather good at calling out Alex Salmond on his bullshit.
Posted by: Silas 18th April 2016, 11:08 PM
By the time she resigned the damage had already been done. Glasgow voting yes was probably the most obvious sign of the changing attitudes.
Jim Murphy was just the final nail and burial of the coffin.
Posted by: Qassändra 18th April 2016, 11:09 PM
She was. But it's intractable at the moment. So long as the floor for one side is 45 and you have three parties fighting for the other 55, there is no answer. The only solution is someone good enough (or for the SNP to get bad enough) to break the former. So long as that support is an article of faith, there aren't going to be many of those lying around.
Posted by: Silas 18th April 2016, 11:39 PM
Yes the SNPs support is entirely because of the Referendum and has absolutely nothing to do with being an effective government for the past 9 years or the fact that they've largely kept their promises. And we'll ignore the fact that they've made a fundamental difference to the lives of people in Scotland.
I forget that people who live hundreds of miles away from Scotland and literally feel no effect of SNP policy are the absolutely the key experts on the political landscape of Scotland and what it's like to live there and that the only possible reason for voting for the SNP is independence.
Here are the 5 main reasons that I will be voting for the SNP on May 5th:
- Free prescriptions
- Free University Education (The only reason I could afford uni. It's only fair those that follow get the same chance that I did)
- Commitment to improving the infrastructure of Scotland (100's of new Schools and Hospitals, Longest railway line built in Scotland since 1901 and the longest line reopened in British modern history, Queensferry Crossing, A9 upgrade, M8/M74/M73 upgrade, Smart motorway roll out on M9/M90, Clackmannanshire Bridge)
- The Scottish NHS is the best performing of all 4 nations by a country mile
- Heavily in favour of harnessing renewable energy and setting ambitious climate change targets. 57.7% of our electricity in 2015 came from renewables and the SNP Government target is to hit the magic 100% by 2020. Ambitious but feasible given that the 2015 target was 50% and Scotland has some of the best renewable energy potential in the world. The Pentland Firth alone contains a reasonably certain 1GW of power (with upper estimates at 1.9GW and some crazies saying 10-20GW is theoretically possible)
The constitution doesn't even remotely come into it. I'm voting for a party with a proven track record of delivery and a proven track record of making the country better.
Posted by: Qassändra 19th April 2016, 09:11 AM
When you've got people blaming SNP cuts on Westminster yet also blaming anything that would alleviate those cuts as 'penalising people to pay for Westminster', then yes, I think it is fair to say their support is in large part constitutional. If you only get to take credit for the good with all the bad being blamed on a nebulous constitutional boogie man, of course the constitution comes into it. Let alone 'remotely'.
Posted by: Steve201 19th April 2016, 12:05 PM
The constitution comes into it of course but not as the MAIN reason for SNP support.
There have been so many factors in their rise that its not even because of their left of centre stance on many things but also a result of economic and social changes over the past 40 years.
Posted by: Qassändra 19th April 2016, 12:19 PM
If it weren't primarily a nationalist phenomenon rather than a socialist one, the Greens and RISE would be doing far better than they are. As indeed would a Labour Party going into this election on a more left-wing platform than the SNP.
Posted by: Silas 19th April 2016, 12:37 PM
The Greens are enjoying their highest level of support ever. They could take 8 seats come May6th thanks to a strong list vote.
Their support has risen dramatically since 2011 and they are considered a main party and in a couple of weeks time should officially become the 4th party of Scottish politics.
Labour haven't benefited because they have no original ideas, have severe reputational damage from 2014 and Jim Murphy, and are led by an idiot.
Steve is right. There is more at play here than they are left wing. They have the right mix of policies and a track record in government that obliterates LibLab. They are a proven safe pair of hands for Holyrood that have won the public over with their vision of what will happen over the next 5 years. That's why they are enjoying massive support.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 19th April 2016, 02:18 PM
There's no way in hell that a sitting government that's been in power for nine years could be this popular (unless they'd genuinely created some social democratic utopia, which doesn't appear to have happened) unless there were significant other factors at play.
Posted by: Qassändra 19th April 2016, 03:22 PM
Again, 'proven safe pair of hands' doesn't really work when everything that goes wrong is mysteriously the fault of Westminster. It's more like a goalkeeper taking credit for all the saves but blaming everyone else for the goals.
'No original ideas' is fairly rich given anything proposed as a solution to said problems is by turns either 'talking Scotland down' (the most ludicrous and embarrassing retort to a policy critique probably ever conceived by a modern political party. That it somehow has traction says a lot about the state of politics north of the Border), '#snpbaaaaaaaad' (dear me) or 'making Scotland pay for Westminster' (?! for the notion of what would happen after independence!).
Posted by: Silas 19th April 2016, 05:39 PM
It's not 'rich' if it's truthful.
The only two SLab policies that come to mind right now are smart ticketing for transport and 1p for education.
(http://www.scotrail.co.uk/tickets/smartcard & http://www.transport.gov.scot/public-transport/smart-and-integrated-ticketing)
One is already Government policy and being in the middle of being implemented, and the other they stole from the LibDems
The 1p tax rise refund for low earners was an original idea i'll give you that much but it was a complete and utter omnishambles it makes the pasty tax look competent.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 19th April 2016, 06:05 PM
Ha, 100% by 2020! Talk about deluded! See below from Private Eye...
The SNP plans to produce ''100 percent of Scotland's electricity needs from renewables by 2020''; to continue to export power to England, and at the same time to say ''no'' to new nuclear power stations. But is has just noticed a serious flaw in this vision and is lobbying in vain to rescue it's position.
As elsewhere in the UK, Scotland's gas and coal fired electricity capacity is falling, and it's two nuclear plants will close and not be replaced if the SNP has it's way. It's renewable generation is predominantly wind-power which is expanding strongly thanks to UK government subsidies.
Because wind power is so intermittent, if average Scottish renewables output was to equate to even just a high proportion of Scottish demand, this would mean very large exports of surplus power to England on windy days, and, when the nuclear power stations have closed, imports from England when the wind isn't blowing-as it doesn't in Scotlandon several weeks each year.
England already gets more of it's electricity via cross-Channel interconnectors from Continental Europe than it does from Scotland, and a panicky SNP has just noticed that more interconnectors are planned. This would leave an independent Scotland as just one amongst several electricity exporters competing for English business. As the SNP has now realised, this will trash the price Scottish generators receive.
This all goes back to the 'German effect', Germany's very large wind farm sector and phasing out of nuclear power generation have resulted in big periodic power surpluses and a slumping wholesale price of power there. German wholesale prices are even sometimes negative-ie the grid has to play wholesale buyers to take surplus electricity, frequently as exports to neighbouring countries.
When the wind isn't blowing in Germany, however, it must import electricity and German households end up paying some of the highest prices in Europe. The same fate is in store for an independent Scotland if it sticks with it's all wind and no nuclear policy. Not only would it lose UK wind subsidies (running at about 4bn per year) and have to pay full grid charges for exporting to England (also currently subsidised), but it's exports of surplus wind power would frequently be at next to nothing prices, while the imports it needed to keep Scotland's lights on when the wind wasn't blowing would be priced at a premium.
The SNP is lobbying hard against the new interconnectors, and nobody is listening.
...............
Posted by: Silas 19th April 2016, 06:33 PM
Renewables consists of more than just wind power! But I agree that we need to diversify our energy supply, what I don't agree with is that diversification means nuclear and fossil fuels. Pumped Storage Hydro, Tidal and Wave power are what we should be investing in and a licence has already been granted for a very large tidal array in the Pentland Firth.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 19th April 2016, 06:42 PM
Diversification is a must- but when the wind drops out (in Winter anticyclones) where does the additional energy come from to make up the shortfall?
Surely nuclear must still have a sizable role in an effective energy strategy. Don't get me wrong at least the SNP have a strategy unlike the hopeless shower of disappointment we have in Westminster (whose policy appears to simply be kick the can down the road for another 5 years)
Posted by: Silas 19th April 2016, 06:47 PM
My preference is a couple of coal plants on back up operating with CCS.
Only problem is getting the cash together to actually get CCS R&D'd to the point that it's effective.
Peterhead or Longanet with CCS would have been a great back-up for us as coal is cheap (we even have our own) and the CCS ensures that it's clean.
Posted by: popchartfreak 19th April 2016, 09:06 PM
coal = CO2. Not environmentally friendly renewables.
Westminster: busy removing subsidies for green power, especially land windpower. Busy caving in to political pressure to cancel offshore windfarms (Tory Dorset). Busy signing on the dotted line with China for nuclear power stations (I would bet in areas that aren't Tory voters). China seems to be giving the Tory party hard-ons thinking of new cash flows. How times have changed, China used to be one of the world's biggest polluters, one of the least-free-market of the big countries (no-one can own land in China), human rights dodgy student-trampling, executing, ruling class cash-stashing-offshore-corruption (presumably), and now it's a model business partner because it has cash to spare.
Or at least it appears to have cash until the empty cities and housing bubble collapses taking the banking system down with it. Glass half empty me...
Now where can I sign up to that microchip interstellar parasol plan...? 
Posted by: Suedehead2 19th April 2016, 09:25 PM
Westminster: busy removing subsidies for green power, especially land windpower. Busy caving in to political pressure to cancel offshore windfarms (Tory Dorset). Busy signing on the dotted line with China for nuclear power stations (I would bet in areas that aren't Tory voters). China seems to be giving the Tory party hard-ons thinking of new cash flows. How times have changed, China used to be one of the world's biggest polluters, one of the least-free-market of the big countries (no-one can own land in China), human rights dodgy student-trampling, executing, ruling class cash-stashing-offshore-corruption (presumably), and now it's a model business partner because it has cash to spare.
Or at least it appears to have cash until the empty cities and housing bubble collapses taking the banking system down with it. Glass half empty me...
Now where can I sign up to that microchip interstellar parasol plan...?
Ah yes, but you're talking about Gideon's best mates. And, of course, with Tories money talks far louder than anything else. It certainly talks far louder than dead protestors.
Posted by: Silas 19th April 2016, 09:41 PM
Westminster: busy removing subsidies for green power, especially land windpower. Busy caving in to political pressure to cancel offshore windfarms (Tory Dorset). Busy signing on the dotted line with China for nuclear power stations (I would bet in areas that aren't Tory voters). China seems to be giving the Tory party hard-ons thinking of new cash flows. How times have changed, China used to be one of the world's biggest polluters, one of the least-free-market of the big countries (no-one can own land in China), human rights dodgy student-trampling, executing, ruling class cash-stashing-offshore-corruption (presumably), and now it's a model business partner because it has cash to spare.
Or at least it appears to have cash until the empty cities and housing bubble collapses taking the banking system down with it. Glass half empty me...
Now where can I sign up to that microchip interstellar parasol plan...?
CCS = Carbon Capture and Storage = No atmospheric CO2
Posted by: Harve 20th April 2016, 12:30 AM
A good summary of why Scottish Labour are failing and continuing to fail.
Again, 'proven safe pair of hands' doesn't really work when everything that goes wrong is mysteriously the fault of Westminster. It's more like a goalkeeper taking credit for all the saves but blaming everyone else for the goals.
'No original ideas' is fairly rich given anything proposed as a solution to said problems is by turns either 'talking Scotland down' (the most ludicrous and embarrassing retort to a policy critique probably ever conceived by a modern political party. That it somehow has traction says a lot about the state of politics north of the Border), '#snpbaaaaaaaad' (dear me) or 'making Scotland pay for Westminster' (?! for the notion of what would happen after independence!).
Regardless of what silly retorts those in nationalist circles are saying (I've heard them all and the atmosphere leading up to the referendum made me SO GLAD I fucked off to Belgium just in time), the voters Labour are trying to win back have little to gain from not voting SNP or Greens. Especially not when Scottish Labour are still a bit too tied down to Westminster Labour.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 21st April 2016, 08:52 PM
Just back from attending a hustings for the first time in my constituency (Belfast North). There was a lot to take in from it, mainly that I find the Green Party NI to be a bunch of annoying, obnoxious tw*ts.
Posted by: Steve201 21st April 2016, 11:20 PM
Haha why is that?
Posted by: Brett-Butler 22nd April 2016, 07:14 PM
A fairly large proportion of the audience were members of the local GP, and throughout the debate they talked over other speakers, refused to let other members of the audience speak (at one point they refused to hand the microphone back to the moderator), and whenever the moderator started to ask the candidate a difficult question, they effectively tried to shut down the opportunity for him to respond in order to save face. That and the general undeserved smugness that surrounded those members in attendance as well. It really says it all that I came out of the hustings with a better opinion of the DUP than I did of the Greens.
Posted by: Steve201 23rd April 2016, 09:42 PM
Who's standing there in North Belfast for them? I know in my south Belfast constituency Clare Bailey has a decent chance of a second seat for them - I really like Steven Agnew as well. But I'd say in North Belfast they will be far behind SF and the DUP due to the mix of nationalist/unionist interfaces there. I find it strange in that constituency too the mix of left wing candidates who will clearly cancel each other out - what's the difference between PBP and The Workers Party?
Posted by: Harve 24th April 2016, 10:23 AM
That sounds pretty identical to my impression of RISE/SSP then.
Posted by: Steve201 24th April 2016, 11:19 AM
My problem being that they put candidates up In working class constituencies and split the vote leaving the DUP to get an extra seat!
Posted by: Brett-Butler 24th April 2016, 12:38 PM
Malachai O'Hara's standing for the Greens. Not that he's getting my vote. I don't mind Steven Agnew myself, and I do have environmental sympathies, but the tone of the membership and the direction they're moving in doesn't sit well with me. Interestingly, in Agnew's constituency Brian Wilson, who was the leader of the Green Party before him and was the first Green Party MLA, is standing as an independent against him. Haven't read into the reason why he left the party or why he's running against Agnew, but will be interesting to see if it splits his vote up.
It seems as if once you get beyond a certain point on the left wing of the political spectrum things start to get very Judean Peoples' Front/Peoples' Front of Judea, with their insistence on their own version of ideological purity and splits over must seem like the most trivial of things to outsiders. It wouldn't surprise me if at some point one of the parties split over a furious debate over what side of a boiled egg you crack open to eat it. Although it terms of N Belfast it's a bit of a moot point anyway, as both PBP or the Workers' Party will be lucky to crack 3 figures in 1st preference votes. (Although PBP have a good shot at picking up 2 seats - Gerry will probably nab one of Sinn Fein's 5 in West Belfast, whilst Angry Eamonn could clinch a seat in Derry as long as the 2nd preferences don't count against him again).
I do think that the DUP will lose a seat in North Belfast, although to the benefit of the UUP.
Posted by: Steve201 24th April 2016, 01:48 PM
Hope Gerry Carroll gets in - he's building a head of steam in that constituency, fair play to him. It sounds strange being a nationalist but I think it's bad that West Belfast has exclusively nationalist reps - a unionist wouldn't be a bad thing there!
South Down is the other constituency I have family links to and there seems to be a similar situation to N.Belfast only loads of unionists - TUV, UKIP, UUP, DUP & Independent Unionist John MacAllistair (who I really like as a local candidate)!
Not many left wingers in that conservative rural constitutional nationalist seat - only really a austerity lite SF & Greens!
Posted by: Harve 4th May 2016, 09:01 AM
I knew that Patrick Harvie was contesting my seat, but I didn't realise until this morning that Scottish Greens are only contesting 3 constituencies so it's a fairly unique opportunity to vote Green twice - I think I'll take it!
Posted by: richie 4th May 2016, 09:17 AM
Yep, only the four traditional parties taking part in my seat too. No UKIP either.
Thinking I'll return to my traditional Lib Dem vote for the seat and give a vote to Green at regional level.
Posted by: Qassändra 4th May 2016, 04:05 PM
Well, if they wanted anything done about cuts in Scotland (i.e. increased tax and spending to avoid them), then yes, there's a lot they'd have to gain from voting Labour rather than voting SNP (I can't speak for the Greens but I imagine they likely have tax increases in their manifesto).
Posted by: Silas 4th May 2016, 05:13 PM
The majority of working people in Scotland only pay tax at the lower rate. I can totally see them QUEUEING up to vote for an increase in the lowest tax band, unlimited increase in council tax and no reduction in APD all for less investment in the NHS.
With policies like that I really have absolutely no idea why the polling agencies think the SNP will win. Clearly Labour have the best policies and record on the economy. Only a blinkered idiot would think otherwise.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 4th May 2016, 05:57 PM
With policies like that I really have absolutely no idea why the polling agencies think the SNP will win. Clearly Labour have the best policies and record on the economy. Only a blinkered idiot would think otherwise.
The thing is, "blinkered idiots" form an overwhelming percentage of the voting electorate.
Posted by: Qassändra 4th May 2016, 08:53 PM
With policies like that I really have absolutely no idea why the polling agencies think the SNP will win. Clearly Labour have the best policies and record on the economy. Only a blinkered idiot would think otherwise.
Okay, so why exactly are you in favour of independence again? Oil money isn't going to pay for a fairer Scotland anymore, if it was ever going to. Higher taxes are clearly out, judging from this post. Forgive me if I'm struggling a little on the details, but...it almost sounds here like the main justification for independence is a nationalist one based on, ahem, 'neoliberal' economic policies, rather than a socialist one.
And yes, this is exactly why the SNP are winning. Scottish Labour's platform for this election is literally following all of the implications given for what the point of independence was and what the point of getting rid of Labour last year was. Red Tories? Here, have a socialist economic and fiscal policy. Fairer Scotland? Here, use the levers Scotland has to raise more money and spend more on the least well-off. Oh wait, everyone wanted centrism and tax freezes and just a little bit of increased spending all along? Wasn't that why everyone called New Labour Red Tories who did nothing for Scotland?
Which is the entire point of the Scottish Labour campaign. Yes, they're going to get thrashed tomorrow. That's going to prove the point: what's the case for Scotland being so different from the rest of the UK (and ergo independence being justified) if they only want the rhetoric of a left-wing government and not the actions of one? Solely a nationalist one. And at the same time, the case for New Labour 'betraying' Scotland in any real policy sense becomes nonsense too. And by the process of elimination, we get the beginnings of a roadmap to recovery.
Posted by: Steve201 5th May 2016, 08:55 AM
I agree but by process of elimination we also come back to the 80s when Labour had a majority in Scotland but due to the tories dominating England (the south of) Scotland got dictated to by a tory government at Westminster. Its not just nationalism here its the undemocratic nature of Westminster government imo.
Posted by: Steve201 5th May 2016, 08:59 AM
So I voted early this morning as Im playing football later so wouldnt get round to it until after 9pm!
Its STV in N.Ireland so plenty of choices if you want -
I went -
1) Sean Burns (Cross Community Anti-Austerity Alliance)
2) Lily Kerr (The Workers Party)
3) Claire Bailey (Green Party) South Belfast could make history and have its first ever GP MLA.
4) Marge Anton (Northern Ireland Labour Rep Committee) These are the guys who went against the Labour Party in London trying to stop them standing candidates in the province. Apparently they will be expelled due to this.
5) Martin O'Muilloire (Sinn Fein)
Posted by: Harve 5th May 2016, 12:21 PM
I'm sympathetic to Labour so I'm TRYING to get on board with the idea that they would be an appealing political party if only the SNP weren't part of 'the establishment'. http://imgur.com/veDUH3j. scotvote16.com is comparing manifesto policies and it's a WhatScotlandThinks sister site btw. S. Labour are marginally more economically to the left but the SNP are rather more socially liberal - the difference is there but it's unclear and not too large anyway. And if we're going to talk about actions, then Westminster Labour's apathetic period of opposition is fresh in voters' minds. As for dissent, there are actually quite a good chunk of former SNP voters who've been turning away from them due to them being too centrist, but they're going to one of the three (?) parties further to the left than both Scottish Labour and the SNP. I'm under no illusion that the left are going to make major headway this year, but add up the votes from Greens/SSP/RISE and you'll find a lot of people who are less than happy with the SNP. Naturally, left-leaning SNP voters aren't going to switch to an anti-independence party which is seen as very split (can I include the m******* word in this sentence?).
You're right that the main difference between Labour and the SNP is their stance on independence rather than economic and social policy. But that's a problem in itself.
Posted by: Chez Wombat 5th May 2016, 05:38 PM
Voted in the London Mayoral election just now for Labour~ So pleased we're finally gonna be rid of Boris and I'm glad it's looking likely for Sadiq, especially after that desperate and rather offensive article Zack Goldsmith posted last weekend about him (no thanks to the picture the Daily Mail put with it, who agreed to publish his shit ofc. 
)
I was kinda tempted to put https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/police-raids-police-state?utm_term=.nugqXVxDM#.yg18JOgRp as my second choice though, bless him 
Posted by: Doctor Blind 5th May 2016, 06:51 PM
G'WON SADIQ! Barnet have screwed up big time by the sounds of it.
I only had the PCC to vote in but as always made sure that I voted.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 5th May 2016, 06:51 PM
Voted in the NI Assembly election at 7.10 this morning, really sets you up for the day.
Posted by: Suedehead2 5th May 2016, 07:11 PM
I only had a PCC election today. For the first time in my life I spoilt my ballot paper. I had a choice between the Independent incumbent (who made some highly illiberal comments shortly before announcing he was standing for re-election), a Tory, UKIP and Labour. I didn't have any wish to vote for any of them, but I still felt an obligation to turn up.
Posted by: popchartfreak 5th May 2016, 07:23 PM
Yes I was rather peed at the lack of representation for my views too. In the end I went for Labour as they stand no chance of winning. Hopefully the other 3 will all be neck and neck and fail to impress anyone.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 5th May 2016, 07:51 PM
I sometimes wonder whether it would be worth introducing a RON (re-open nominations) option in elections if there are no candidates worth voting for, although one suspects than even if it was introduced, there likely wouldn't be many cases where it would gain the most votes.
Posted by: Suedehead2 5th May 2016, 11:51 PM
The Lib Dems are ahead in the Scottish Parliament, having won all the seats declared so far. All one of them.
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 01:43 AM
Looking like a mixed bag north of the border tonight.
LibDems are on a bit of a fight back in four places but will possibly just miss out on the two of those that are on the mainland (having already taken the northern isles). Labour look to be completely collapsing in some places but there are messages that they are holding up in others. SNP should take every Glasgow seat and look like a reasonably good bet to hit the magic 65. Greens are supposedly second in Glasgow Kelvin, which would be a f***ing outstanding result from them, and look likely to pick up a few list seats also. Word is that if UKIP are to get a seat they'll take a Highlands and Islands list seat for that abomination that is an MEP. Given that EURef is weeks away this was their best chance to actually break through here and I'm proud that it's only a few racists in the part of the country that either a) has f*** all immigration or b) used to be Norwegian that have voted for them. (And given that part of the country is home to all of 304 people there will probably only be about 24 people to round up and have deported to England and/or shot)
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 01:46 AM
I've seen rumours on Twitter that the Lib Dems could (re)gain Fife NE from the SNP.
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 01:58 AM
That along with Edinburgh Western (possibly Eastern, I can't quite remember which of the two) are the two mainland ones they are hoping for.
NE Fife going SNP last time really summed up the mood towards the LibDems. The message I was brought up on was you vote LibDem to keep the tories out, not to go into coalition with the f***ers. I've seen a lot of talk on my Facebook feed today of tactical voting by Tory voters so when that count comes in, probably around 5am - for a region so bloody small it's an embarrassment that it takes so long to count - it could be quite an outlier in the overall results with a Tory fall feeding a LibDem gain.
Personally i think voting tactically is for c**ts but if we lose the seat we'll take a list seat instead for Mid-Scotland & Fife so it's going to make no difference to either party's total seat numbers for the region as a LD win will come at expense of a list seat.
My mother was my proxy and because of circumstances, she's also in England at the moment so I didn't get a vote this time as Fife council refused to grant an emergency proxy. However our votes would cancel each other out.
I am loving how much my constituency is being mentioned on the TV coverage. Mighty Ming being on at the start of our coverage helped as well so a close battle will just keep attention on the area which is only a good thing.
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 02:03 AM
After 16 it's 13 to the SNP, 2 to the LibDem and a Tory.
Main pattern seems to be Labour down, SNP consistent, Tory up and LibDems irrelevant on the mainland.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 02:16 AM
Apparently the Lib Dems are set to win Edinburgh West, another seat lost in the general election last year.
Posted by: LushLife 6th May 2016, 02:20 AM
Disappointing to see the tories on the up in Scotland.
I actually expected a further SNP landslide.
Posted by: LushLife 6th May 2016, 02:21 AM
Tories 5,646
SNP 11,463
Labour 2,026
Lib Dems 14,928
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 02:23 AM
LibDems have taken my seat back!
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 02:26 AM
If the Lib Dems can add Edinburgh W to Fife NE, that will count as a rather better result in Scotland than expected.
It is indeed depressing to see the Tory vote well up north of the border.
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 02:32 AM
Mostly to do with Ruth tbh.
Plus I think we're getting some tactical voting here.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 03:07 AM
A Lib Dem gain in Edinburgh W now confirmed. The real shift in votes is from Labour to Lib Dem with the others basically unchanged.
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 03:10 AM
Edinburgh West goes LibDem!
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 03:19 AM
Kezia Dugdale's vote in Edinburgh Eastern is down 7%. Bit of an embarrassment for her to lose directly to the tories (who are up 8% with no change for SNP)
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 03:24 AM
And with that, Ruth Davidson herself wins her Edinburgh seat.
The Greens coming a very sold 4th there, at the expense of the SNP.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 03:32 AM
A spectacular Lib Dem win in Brecon and Radnorshire. The Lib Dem results in Wales have been mostly awful, but this is one bright spot with an easy win.
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 03:45 AM
Can't really draw a consistent picture across Scotland right now other than Ruth Davidson has performed a minor miracle.
Like Edinburgh Southern just went Labour, their first gain of the night bucking the vote across the rest of the country.
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 03:51 AM
As Labour win, they get demoted to 3rd in Glasgow Kelvin by the Greens!!
Such a strange election this one.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 03:52 AM
The Lib Dems have won the PCC election in Wiltshire They didn't even manage to come second anywhere last time these pointless elections took place.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 04:02 AM
They didn't even manage to come second anywhere last time these pointless elections took place.That result appears to have been a mistake
It did seem rather unlikely.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 04:28 AM
I seem to have missed a rather significant change in the rules of arithmetic. Chris Grayling has just claimed that the Tories are ahead of Labour in the number of seats won tonight. According to the BBC website, Labour have won 761 to the Tories' 440, but apparently 440 is now more than 761. Or perhaps Grayling really is as dim as some journalists say he is.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 04:33 AM
Predictably enough Labour won the mayoral election in Liverpool. They gained a little over 50% of the vote to win in the first round. The Lib Dems came second with the Green candidate third. The Tory candidate came sixth
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 6th May 2016, 06:07 AM
We need PR.
Tories do not represent the north or Wales or (usually...) Scortland. Being ruled by them is like not having representation.
Posted by: Harve 6th May 2016, 06:14 AM
Green Party contesting Ruth Davidson's constituency certainly granted her the seat instead of the SNP. Curious.
Posted by: Harve 6th May 2016, 06:26 AM
Highland and Island result means UKIP are still absent in Scotland which is beautiful.
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 06:50 AM
Probably the most important result of the night that one. Crucial we kept the scumbags out of Holyrood, especially given which item of toxic waste was top of their list.
Great to see the Greens look to take 4th, even if they are indirectly responsible for us dropping a seat in Edinburgh. The sharp increase in Tory votes is concerning though.
Posted by: LushLife 6th May 2016, 06:53 AM
Yeah, it's concerning to see that the Tories are the second biggest party in Scotland now
Posted by: Harve 6th May 2016, 07:10 AM
The Tory votes are ex-Labour voters who categorically won't vote for a pro-independence party. I'm not sure how many more there could be for future elections, assuming that Labour's vote could fall further - could the unionist vote gravitate a bit more towards one party or will it remain very split between Labour, Lib Dem and the Tories?
Posted by: richie 6th May 2016, 07:14 AM
Tories do not represent the north or Wales or (usually...) Scortland. Being ruled by them is like not having representation.
Well, it's the additional member system up here that is returning most of the Tory MPs...but that wouldn't usually be the case. Definitely do need a PR system for Westminster though, it's practically the only house anywhere that uses FPTP now isn't it?
Be careful campaigning for alternative electoral systems though - the shitty AV referendum is practically all the Lib Dems got from Cameron for propping him up and they lost immeasurably for doing that.
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 07:49 AM
2 shy of a majority with one list left to declare. We will probably pick up a seat on the NE List but I doubt we will get two so a SNP-Green coalition it is!
To come so close to a second majority in an electoral system that was purposely set up to deny the SNP ever having a majority is a great result.
Top three order is set as there's no way Labour get 6 seats on the NE list. Greens could still be knocked into 5th
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 08:11 AM
Be careful campaigning for alternative electoral systems though - the shitty AV referendum is practically all the Lib Dems got from Cameron for propping him up and they lost immeasurably for doing that.
It's very noticeable that precisely none of the post-Soviet Union states chose to adopt FPTP when they established democracy.
Posted by: Harve 6th May 2016, 08:50 AM
To come so close to a second majority in an electoral system that was purposely set up to deny the SNP ever having a majority is a great result.
Top three order is set as there's no way Labour get 6 seats on the NE list. Greens could still be knocked into 5th
SNP are reluctant to go into coalition with Greens no?
Posted by: richie 6th May 2016, 09:24 AM
I think SNP would go with a slight minority, wouldn't they? Greens would back them on quite a few policies anyway.
The NE list is a f***ing embarrassment. Four Tories returned from my area - and it turns out both my votes were wasted as I went Green on the list.
Posted by: Qassändra 6th May 2016, 09:34 AM
It doesn't make a great deal of sense for the SNP to go into coalition when they can just run it as a minority. They have an easy argument if they ever get defeated in a vote.
Posted by: Danny 6th May 2016, 10:02 AM
So with Labour largely holding its ground (outside of Scotland anyway), "unelectable" Corbyn has proven to be just as much (or as little) electable as the "centre-ground" numpties who ran the show for the previous five years
Posted by: Soy Adrián 6th May 2016, 10:03 AM
Tories do not represent the north or Wales or (usually...) Scortland. Being ruled by them is like not having representation.
Yeah that's not what PR is.
Posted by: Qassändra 6th May 2016, 10:04 AM
I'm not sure. Unimaginable it may be, but I really doubt Ed Miliband would have been losing council seats against a government in crisis, as John McDonnell so rightly diagnoses them.
Posted by: Danny 6th May 2016, 10:15 AM
Actually, the BBC projects on results so far Labour have won the estimated national vote by about 1-2% -- that would be better than Ed Miliband's first outing in 2011, where he lost to the Tories by 1%.
In any case, most of the losses Labour have suffered were to UKIP, which suggests it's the EU referendum that is causing Labour trouble more than anything else -- yet that is the very issue where the Blairites want to take a kamikaze "no compromise with the electorate" approach.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 6th May 2016, 12:58 PM
With UKIP it's more that 2013 was their breakthrough year so they've not been this competitive in these seats before.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 12:58 PM
Some of Labour's one-party states have gained an opposition. Manchester now has a solitary Lib Dem (the former MP for Manchester Withington) to stand up to the Labour group of 95 councillors. In pre-coalition days, there was a sizeable Lib Dem group.
Knowsley now has an opposition comprising three Lib Dem councillors.
Overall, the number of seats changing hands across England is remarkably low.
The turnout for the PCC elections is up on last time, although still pathetically low. Some of the increase will be a result of local elections taking place on the same day in large parts of the country.
Posted by: Qassändra 6th May 2016, 01:15 PM
I think you're possibly comparing apples with pears in terms of measurement - on the metric you're basing this year on (I presume raw vote from all the councils voting), Labour beat the Tories by 2 percent in 2011. I think you're referring to the estimated national vote share for 2011 which they'll have projected from the results. I don't think they'll have worked out for this year yet until all the council results are in.
Nonetheless, since 2012 Labour are down 7 points and the Conservatives are down 1. We're at a point of unpopularity for the government on a par with 2012, not 2011, and Labour are still not able to capitalise on that. It's putting a lot of hope on to think things would get more favourable a year down the line after the divisive EU referendum's out of the way.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 6th May 2016, 02:08 PM
Yes it is. Proportional votes so a more balanced parliament.
Absolutely!
Have you seen the map? Apart from Scotland, nearly all red!!
Corbyn to win the General!
Posted by: Steve201 6th May 2016, 02:23 PM
Gerry Carroll - People Before Profit tops the poll in Republican West Belfast!!
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 02:24 PM
The Tories have now lost almost as many council seats as Labour. The BBC - even though the information is from their website - don't seem to have picked up on that yet. The Lib Dems have now made the most net gains, albeit only 30.
Posted by: Iz~ 6th May 2016, 02:30 PM
This seems to be baby steps away from the disastrous 2015. Could have gone better but at least there isn't a collapse outside Scotland. Although what is going on in Scotland is certainly unexpected.
The scrutiny is always on Labour's side, the Tories won't get picked up on anything bad unless it becomes unignorable. Come on BBC. But honestly, as much as I want to say this is a good thing for Corbyn, I'd have hoped it would be a lot better after 6 years in opposition.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 6th May 2016, 02:37 PM
The BBC's coverage is DESPICABLE.
How can we EVER EVER call them unbiased and impartial again?
Disgusting.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 02:37 PM
The Lib Dems have taken control of Watford. The Tories - who won the parliamentary seat last year - have been wiped out. The Lib Dems' seven gains is the most by any party I've noticed in all the results so far, thus underlining how few seats have changed hands.
Posted by: Silas 6th May 2016, 03:59 PM
Email I just got from our MP, perks of being a paid up nationalist, revealed that the SNP won the regional vote in NE Fife suggesting it wasn't so much a revival for the LibDems but a result of a popular and visible leader against a bit of a dull non-entity. The LibDems have traditionally benefited from this very localised effect and it'd be fair to say, given they got 1 list seat and fell to 5th, that this is what happened here again. A bit more of a business as usual election on the constituency side for them but that List vote is still a massive problem.
I do like Willie Rennie, I think he's been very likeable through the election, and Liberal Constituency SNP list is how I voted at the last election so for me the result is in line with my preferences for a good local candidate who has our back and a strong SNP block to keep building on the positive journey the country has been on since 2007.
The outcome is certainly as a result of the additional member system working properly. The SNP didn't quite hit 50% and correspondingly picked up the right number of seats. We broke the system last time with a strong list vote and other parties have wised up to that strategy allowing the system to naturally correct itself. 63 seats is a great result. 6 Greens is a great result. I think it'll be a great 5 year parliament. We were extremely effective as a minority administration and leading a very strong minority administration will give us a very stable parliament where the government still has a lot of power but with an appropriate amount of checks and balances for a unicameral system that was perhaps missing last time.
This time it's the Conservatives who have "broken" the system. They have more seats than their vote share suggests they should (by 3) at Labours expense. However compared to 2011 this isn't too bad.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 6th May 2016, 04:57 PM
I thought you'd be happy about that. No surprise him winning it, but topping the poll was a real surprise. Angry Eamonn looks like he's going to win the Foyle seat as well.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 6th May 2016, 05:33 PM
How can we EVER EVER call them unbiased and impartial again?
Disgusting.
You really can't see the wood for the trees can you?
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th May 2016, 09:03 PM
It had looked as if the London mayoral result might be announced relatively early this year, but apparently there is a discrepancy of some sort, so it will be at the usual time of around midnight. Not that there's any doubt about the result.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 6th May 2016, 09:21 PM
Laura Kuenssberg remained her usual biased self on the BBC today I notice - they are becoming a puppet of the government lately. C4 much better news service as always!
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 6th May 2016, 10:07 PM
And what do you mean by that, sweet summer's child?
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 6th May 2016, 10:08 PM
BBC have always had a fondness for the Tories - but recently that fondness has turned into puppetry.
Posted by: Danny 6th May 2016, 10:29 PM
No - they were both measuring the same thing, projected voteshares for the whole of the UK - it's just the 2% Labour lead in 2011 was an earlier estimate, which was later revised to a 1% Tory lead.
If the current 1% Labour lead stands, that makes it unequivocal fact that Labour are tracking ahead of their performance at this point in the last parliament.
But comparing 2012 to 2016 really is comparing apples with oranges -- governments literally always, ALWAYS, do better in the first set of local elections in an electoral cycle than they do later on. There is ALWAYS somewhat of a lingering honeymoon effect just one year out from a general election, no matter how badly they're messing up (even in 1993, in the immediate wake of Black Wednesday, the Tories did OK-ish in the locals). 2011 is the only like-for-like comparison point for this set of elections
Which is not to say Corbyn is on course to win the next general election -- after all, marginally tracking ahead of Ed Miliband is nothing to write home about. But it's still a more appealing prospect than returning to the Blairite "centre ground" course of letting the Tories pass all the cuts they want without a fight and letting them shift the terms of debate endlessly to the right, without even any more chance of election success than Corbyn offers to compensate.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 6th May 2016, 10:37 PM
Preaaach, Danny!!
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th May 2016, 08:32 AM
If the current 1% Labour lead stands, that makes it unequivocal fact that Labour are tracking ahead of their performance at this point in the last parliament.
But comparing 2012 to 2016 really is comparing apples with oranges -- governments literally always, ALWAYS, do better in the first set of local elections in an electoral cycle than they do later on. There is ALWAYS somewhat of a lingering honeymoon effect just one year out from a general election, no matter how badly they're messing up (even in 1993, in the immediate wake of Black Wednesday, the Tories did OK-ish in the locals). 2011 is the only like-for-like comparison point for this set of elections
Which is not to say Corbyn is on course to win the next general election -- after all, marginally tracking ahead of Ed Miliband is nothing to write home about. But it's still a more appealing prospect than returning to the Blairite "centre ground" course of letting the Tories pass all the cuts they want without a fight and letting them shift the terms of debate endlessly to the right, without even any more chance of election success than Corbyn offers to compensate.
While it is true that governments tend to do less badly in the first set of local elections after a general election, it is still standard practise to compare each set of local elections with the equivalent elections in the cycle, i.e. the same elections four years earlier. Therefore, Thursday's elections should be compared with 2012. With that in mind, it should be noted - because anyone depending on the BBC headlines will have missed it - that the Tories lost more seats than Labour, and that the Lib Dems made more net gains than any other party.
Perhaps the most encouraging thing for the Lib Dems is that they comfortably exceeded their opinion poll rating. That makes these local elections more in line with those in the pre-coalition days, so there is some sign that good local organisation is starting to overcome general hostility.
The 1993 local elections were not OK-ish for the Tories. Those elections (along with their heavy defeat in a by-election in Newbury on the same day) were the first sign that hey were heading for a massive defeat in the next general election, even before Blair became Labour leader. In those elections they lost control of counties such as Surrey, East and West Sussex etc. They were left with just one county, Buckinghamshire, under their control. It may be 23 years ago, but I remember the night very well.
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th May 2016, 08:40 AM
The worst thing about the BBC coverage was that they seems to have decided before any votes were counted that these elections were all about Jeremy Cortbyn and how badly Labour were going to do. They adjusted the story slightly when the Tories gained some Scottish constituencies, but then failed to adjust it further as the night - and day - went on.
They kept playing a clip of Liam Fox going on about the Tories making net gains with Labour and Lib Dems losing seats, even when that was no longer true. When the Tories started making net losses, the BBC didn't seem to notice. The story remained that they had made gains in Scotland, and that was used to hide their poorer performance in England and Wales.
Posted by: Silas 7th May 2016, 11:18 AM
The thing they also painted over so conveniently is that none of Ruth's literature carried Tory branding. It was all "Ruth Davidson for a Strong Opposition"
The reasons the Tories did well is because they set out to lose and they avoided the word Conservatives as much as possible. Ruth's acceptance speach directly acknowledges this fact by accepting from the start that it wasn't Tory voters who got them where they are.
She will make an excellent opposition leader because she is a very capable and likeable leader. The lessons to learn from this are probably to look at our leaders. They are all incredibly normal and likeable people who connect well with the public. (Aside from the UKIP Mong)
Posted by: Danny 7th May 2016, 11:48 AM
OK-ish in relative terms, compared to what happened in the years after though, surely? They lost the estimated vote share in 1993 to Labour by "only" 8% -- compared to losing by 12% in 1994 when John Smith was still leader, 22%(!!) in 1995 in Blair's first set of elections, and 13% in 1996.
It wasn't just the 1992-97 cycle either, it's been common for the last 30 years for the first set of local elections to be the best batch of a cycle for the government. The Tories won the estimated vote in both 1984 and 1988, Labour won quite comfortably in 1998, and then the Tories won in 2011.
Posted by: Danny 7th May 2016, 01:33 PM
Meanwhile, Cheshire amusingly continues to turn red. Labour gained the PCC there, to follow up from West Cheshire being their only council gain anywhere in the UK In the 2015 local elections.
Posted by: Qassändra 7th May 2016, 02:16 PM
Because the norm is for governments to lose council seats! The reason the focus is on Labour is because gaining council seats in opposition is a prerequisite for a party to be headed back to government, and even then it isn't a guarantee - take Kinnock and Hague and IDS Howard who all made gains in council seats and yet it still wasn't enough. Yet we've seen time and time again governments lose substantial amounts of council seats and yet still go on to win the next general. It's utterly remarkable that an unpopular government is at a point where they're only losing negligible numbers of seats - just as it's utterly remarkable that an opposition is losing seats at all.
Posted by: Qassändra 7th May 2016, 02:18 PM
Dear me.
Posted by: Danny 7th May 2016, 02:25 PM
Again, they gained seats only when the local elections cycle and general election cycle were aligned (when general elections were held every 4 years like local elections). So the phenomenon of governments doing better in the first year of local elections, before deteriorating as they got into mid-term proper, was already baked into the comparisons since it would always be comparing the first year of a General Election cyle to the first year of the next cycle, the second year of one cycle to the second year of the next, etc. But now that general elections are held every 5 years, gains/losses are not a reliable guide.
Had Thursday's local elections been on the same seats as 2011 (i.e. aligned electoral cycles like Kinnock, Hague, IDS and Howard all fought in), Labour WOULD have made a modest number of gains, since their national voteshare position was better vs 2011.
Posted by: Qassändra 7th May 2016, 02:29 PM
Said 5 year cycle has, if anything, been the norm for a while now - it's only 2001 and 2005 that were four years after! Labour saw huge gains in council seats between 1987 and 1997. 1993 was relatively better for the Tories than the rest of the elections that cycle, but it ignores that Labour had a less popular (though still popular) leader than the one they had for the remaining elections, and it ignores that it was still absolutely diabolical by any absolute standard for the Tories.
Losing just thirty council seats is the kind of result any government would snatch your arm off for, even a year in. By the same token, losing seats at *any* point of the cycle at all is a bad result for any opposition.
Posted by: Danny 7th May 2016, 02:37 PM
But you were talking about Kinnock, Hague, IDS and Howard -- all 4 of them fought on a 4-year electoral cycle, so you can't say "Corbyn's doing worse than them" when the metric for Corbyn is completely different.
Hague and Kinnock (in both 1984 and 1988) lost slightly on voteshare to the Tories on their first outing, so Corbyn has done better than them. He's done as well/badly as IDS did in 2002.
John Smith was still Labour leader in 1994, when the Tories did a fair bit worse than a year earlier, simply because mid-term attrition always kicks in after two years even with all other things being equal.
Posted by: Qassändra 7th May 2016, 02:51 PM
OH, I'd thought he'd died by then, but it was the week after. My point in any case was more that 800 seats lost is an appalling result for a government whatever the circumstances, regardless of how much worse following elections were for them.
Hague and Kinnock (in both 1984 and 1988) lost slightly on voteshare to the Tories on their first outing, so Corbyn has done better than them. He's done as well/badly as IDS did in 2002.
I agree that the IDS comparison probably fits best out of anything if we're to compare 2016 with 2011 (though that was still a gain of over 200 councillors). I'm just surprised you don't see an *IDS comparison* as an (electoral) issue whatsoever.
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th May 2016, 03:38 PM
That's not the point. The point is that those lost seats were barely mentioned. Anyone who watched a few hours at the start of Thursday night and then nothing more until Friday night could still easily be under the impression that the Tories gained seats in England.
Of course, if they had had Lib Dem representatives in the studio, those representatives could have made sure viewers knew about the Lib Dem gains, but they didn't. They rarely bothered to speak to anyone other than Tories and Labour. Let's face it, there are plenty of reasonably recognisable Lib Dems who don't have any parliamentary business to keep them occupied!
Posted by: Danny 7th May 2016, 05:00 PM
I agree that the IDS comparison probably fits best out of anything if we're to compare 2016 with 2011 (though that was still a gain of over 200 councillors). I'm just surprised you don't see an *IDS comparison* as an (electoral) issue whatsoever.
Yes, but so would Labour last week if the electoral cycle had been aligned, like it was in IDS's day!
History suggests that a 1% lead for the Opposition in the first batch of local elections usually translates into a roughly 5% lead for the sitting government at the next General Election -- i.e. almost certainly a hung parliament in 2020. Not great obviously, but not the Tory landslide the clueless Establishment are taking for granted, and no worse than any of the other leadership candidates last year would've got.
Posted by: popchartfreak 7th May 2016, 09:02 PM
Of course, if they had had Lib Dem representatives in the studio, those representatives could have made sure viewers knew about the Lib Dem gains, but they didn't. They rarely bothered to speak to anyone other than Tories and Labour. Let's face it, there are plenty of reasonably recognisable Lib Dems who don't have any parliamentary business to keep them occupied!
I agree about the coverage on libdems - after the general election the hooting and expectation was that they were finished forever. Now voters have had time to reflect on what they did and what has resulted from it it is pretty obvious the only way was and is up. Just a bit quicker than expected
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th May 2016, 09:15 PM
After spending the last few weeks as a propaganda sheet for Zac Goldsmith, the Evening Standard has decided that their favoured candidate's defeat isn't important enough to be the lead story on their website. Maybe somebody in London can let us know whether they bother reporting it in the print version on Monday.
Posted by: Jake 8th May 2016, 09:31 AM
but what a WEIRD mayoral election; it felt like the tories fielded an impossible/unelectable candidate (the anti-eu / anti-heathrow expansion) with a campaign that epitomises WRONG in a lot of ways. it's at no stage gone well (the bollywood' ignorance summed things up so succinctly) but surely that was aware to the tory team?!
idk it's all so off
Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th May 2016, 09:42 AM
You mean the son of a billionaire who appears to be not only arrogant, ignorant and have contempt for anyone who is not rich, and is really only where he is due to nepotism and a lack of anything else to do. Surely that's the COMPLETE DEFINITION of the Conservative party.
I think what happened in London (regarding Zac's entire campaign) was a disgrace quite frankly.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th May 2016, 09:47 AM
#Stat4Qassändra
Posted by: Brett-Butler 8th May 2016, 10:44 AM
I'm sure he's already seen it, and filled it under https://moreknownthanproven.wordpress.com/2016/05/08/another-terrible-election-graphic/.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th May 2016, 10:52 AM
Yes but you've missed my point entirely which is that stats are meaningless and can say anything you want them to.
Posted by: Qassändra 8th May 2016, 11:16 AM
The claim that 'stats are meaningless' just because you can field misleading ones is so astoundingly stupid that I'm shocked someone clearly as intelligent as yourself actually just said it. That's Britain First/UKIP/Russell Brand levels of analysis. You may as well write off the entire concept of evidence-based analysis if all stats are equal.
Posted by: Qassändra 8th May 2016, 11:20 AM
'That Florence Nightingale bird's talking a load of bollocks. You can get a pie chart to show anything these days.'
Posted by: Qassändra 8th May 2016, 11:31 AM
You're right - I'd have been furious that they were barely mentioned. If I were a Conservative spin doctor, that is, considering the norm is for an unpopular government to lose swathes of council seats. For all some allege that the BBC is biased towards the Conservatives, if they actually were they could've spent the whole evening trumpeting that a government at the depths of its popularity barely lost anything at all. Unprecedented when you consider governments that lose negligible numbers of seats in local elections tend to be at the height of their popularity.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 8th May 2016, 11:39 AM
Well, quite.
They already HAD their story against Labour decided before the results and did not change that story at all during the night and following day ...
The Tories have an election fixing scandal and an extremely racist campaign, yet BBC decided to lambast Labour over the anti-antisemitism engineered row (not even bothering to check the source of those re-tweets, comically) whilst giving the Tories a free ride and following Establishment bias.
I think this article puts it quite nicely:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/tom-mills/general-strike-to-corbyn-90-years-of-bbc-establishment-bias
Posted by: Danny 8th May 2016, 11:49 AM
I don't know why you and other people keep saying this. A party is not going to be "at the depths of its popularity" just a year on from winning a general election.
Again, if you want stats, then ALL history suggests it's going to get a hell of a lot worse for the Tories from here, because that is ALWAYS what happens after a government's honeymoon period ends.
Posted by: Qassändra 8th May 2016, 01:37 PM
Again, if you want stats, then ALL history suggests it's going to get a hell of a lot worse for the Tories from here, because that is ALWAYS what happens after a government's honeymoon period ends.
I'll rephrase. They're at a point where the scandals, splits, and general treatment the Conservatives are getting from the media are of a similar magnitude to their lowest point in the 2010-2015 government (between the 2012 Budget to the January 2013 pledge for an EU referendum). It's at the depths of its popularity over the last six years and objectively speaking is a fairly unpopular government. It is unprecedented for a government which is at its most unpopular to that point* to be barely losing seats.
You're correct in that history suggests they're likely to go downhill from this point, but I think how the Tories react to the result of the EU referendum could make the difference. If they patch up and agree to a truce then I think it's likely they'll be more popular this time next year than they are now.
Posted by: Danny 8th May 2016, 01:49 PM
You're correct in that history suggests they're likely to go downhill from this point, but I think how the Tories react to the result of the EU referendum could make the difference. If they patch up and agree to a truce then I think it's likely they'll be more popular this time next year than they are now.
Personally, I don't think the Tories' troubles over the last few weeks have been anything particularly out of the ordinary. Governments are always having bust-ups about something, they are always making gaffes, voters always find something to be discontented about. It will most likely continue right through this parliament -- with the kicker being that voters will take a progressively less forgiving view of the government's setbacks the more that the last general election recedes into the memory, as always happens.
Remember that in the run-up to the 2011 locals, the cuts were kicking in, the economy was in terrible shape, the phone-hacking scandal was getting underway with Andy Coulson already being forced to resign, there'd been a big furore about bankers awarding themselves pre-2008 levels of bonuses, and the government were in-fighting over the AV referendum (a minister accusing someone of "Goebbels-like propaganda" is easily more strong than anything we've seen in the EU referendum so far). Yet in spite of all that, the Tories still won the voteshare that year, and Labour did worse (relatively speaking) that year than they've done in 2016.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 8th May 2016, 04:43 PM
They already HAD their story against Labour decided before the results and did not change that story at all during the night and following day ...
The Tories have an election fixing scandal and an extremely racist campaign, yet BBC decided to lambast Labour over the anti-antisemitism engineered row (not even bothering to check the source of those re-tweets, comically) whilst giving the Tories a free ride and following Establishment bias.
I think this article puts it quite nicely:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/tom-mills/general-strike-to-corbyn-90-years-of-bbc-establishment-bias
Would you miss the BBC if it was gone?
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 8th May 2016, 04:46 PM
The Tories likely will do away with it anyway, so kt may as well bite rather than cowering down.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 8th May 2016, 05:51 PM
There's plenty of Tory voters (and MPs) who rather like the BBC and will object rather loudly to Whittingdale's proposals, which include shifting every show which gets high ratings to a different time slot so as not to get in the way of the commercial stations. They might be less inclined to defend it if the Beeb is seen to be biased against them.
As an organisation it's guilty of generally being a bit small-c conservative at times and completely beholden to the Royal Family (these two things may be related). That's because it's part of the establishment and inherently reliant on the government of the day to provide it with the funding to keep going. The Tories can't just "do away with it" without enormous public uproar and wasting of political capital which they'd rather spend on changes to education, health or welfare - why give them the excuse?
Posted by: Suedehead2 8th May 2016, 08:31 PM
We were told many times in the weeks before the elections that Labour were going to lose a lot of seats. Who was likely to pick up most of them? Many of their predicted losses would have been to the Tories, yet the whole tone of the coverage was that Labour had done less badly than expected. There was not even a hint that the Tories might have done less well than expected. The decision had been taken that these elections were all about Jeremy Corbyn with the concocted anti-semitism row added into the mix in the days before.
The elections in Wales (where both the Tories and Lib Dems did badly and Labour were probably relieved to lose just one seat) were almost entirely ignored.
On a night when very few councils changed hands, they could have said more about the few that did. Arguably the most newsworthy was the Lib Dem victory in Watford. After all, no party lost control of a council they had held for decades. As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), the Watford result was the only one where a party gained control of a council they hadn't controlled before. However, as it happened fairly late, it was barely mentioned. They could have treated Watford as a reason to talk about something other than Corbyn, but they didn't.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 8th May 2016, 09:27 PM
I saw quite a lot about Wales actually, particularly on the "round-up" sections where they covered Scotland in brief as well. By contrast, I only found out from friends that the Lib Dems had taken Watford. The focus on the local news in the North West was (unsurprisingly) them losing control of Stockport, although I managed to sneak on there for a second by virtue of losing to the leader of Trafford Council.
Posted by: Suedehead2 8th May 2016, 10:21 PM
Most of the coverage of Wales was about Leanne Wood winning Rhondda and UKIP's success. There was almost no mention of the fact that the Tories and Lib Dems had done badly.
On the subject of UKIP, their performance in terms of seats won was pretty poor overall. UKIP have gained a lot of seats in the last three sets of local elections. This was effectively the end of the four-year cycle for them, the last set of elections where they start from a very low base. Next year the comparison will be against a set of elections when they did well (assuming they haven't closed down after the referendum).
Posted by: Qassändra 8th May 2016, 11:07 PM
The elections in Wales (where both the Tories and Lib Dems did badly and Labour were probably relieved to lose just one seat) were almost entirely ignored.
On a night when very few councils changed hands, they could have said more about the few that did. Arguably the most newsworthy was the Lib Dem victory in Watford. After all, no party lost control of a council they had held for decades. As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), the Watford result was the only one where a party gained control of a council they hadn't controlled before. However, as it happened fairly late, it was barely mentioned. They could have treated Watford as a reason to talk about something other than Corbyn, but they didn't.
Watford was already Lib Dem - though it should have been mentioned, as it was a surprise that they consolidated control of it so much. The expectation was that they would lose it.
Posted by: Suedehead2 9th May 2016, 08:04 AM
Unless the reports were wrong, the Lib Dems did not have a majority before.
Posted by: popchartfreak 9th May 2016, 11:46 AM
The BBC, I would imagine, are frightened to say boo to a goose these days, lest the Tory party take the trouble to put them at the front of the line for the next round of firing squads - theyve already had big budget cuts, effectively.
They do have a responsive show, though, where they can be taken to task over the coverage - hopefully someone will have taken the time to do that...
Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th May 2016, 03:57 PM
That fake electoral map doing the rounds on Twitter makes me want to gouge my eyes out.
Posted by: Danny 9th May 2016, 04:12 PM
Meanwhile, Rallings & Thrasher have confirmed national vote shares for the locals
Labour 33%
Conservatives 32%
Lib Dems 14%
UKIP 12%
Confirming that Corbyn has slightly outperformed Miliband, relative to the Conservatives, on their respective first outings in local elections.
The 32% for the Tories is the third-worst performance for a government in the first locals of a cycle since 1979, ahead of only the Tories in 1993 (31%) and Labour in 2006 (26%). Also considerably down on the 38% they got in 2011.
First-year performances for governments
1980 Conservatives 40% (2% behind Labour)
1984 Conservatives 38% (1% ahead of Labour)
1988 Conservatives 39% (1% ahead of Labour
1993 Conservatives 31% (8% behind Labour)
1998 Labour 37% (4% ahead of Conservatives)
2002 Labour 33% (1% behind Conservatives)
2006 Labour 26% (13% behind Conservatives)
2011 Conservatives 38% (1% ahead of Labour)
2016 Conservatives 32% (1% behind Labour)
Posted by: Suedehead2 9th May 2016, 04:51 PM
That map is so obviously wrong that I'm not entirely sure what point it is supposed to make.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th May 2016, 05:14 PM
What map?
Posted by: Suedehead2 9th May 2016, 05:41 PM
This one
Even if it accurately reflected which party controls the council (it doesn't), it still covers the whole country rather than just the places that had elections.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th May 2016, 05:41 PM
Ahhh that bas been shared in the socialist groups I'm on on FB!
So it's inaccurate.
Posted by: Qassändra 9th May 2016, 06:33 PM
Labour 33%
Conservatives 32%
Lib Dems 14%
UKIP 12%
Confirming that Corbyn has slightly outperformed Miliband, relative to the Conservatives, on their respective first outings in local elections.
The 32% for the Tories is the third-worst performance for a government in the first locals of a cycle since 1979, ahead of only the Tories in 1993 (31%) and Labour in 2006 (26%). Also considerably down on the 38% they got in 2011.
First-year performances for governments
1980 Conservatives 40% (2% behind Labour)
1984 Conservatives 38% (1% ahead of Labour)
1988 Conservatives 39% (1% ahead of Labour
1993 Conservatives 31% (8% behind Labour)
1998 Labour 37% (4% ahead of Conservatives)
2002 Labour 33% (1% behind Conservatives)
2006 Labour 26% (13% behind Conservatives)
2011 Conservatives 38% (1% ahead of Labour)
2016 Conservatives 32% (1% behind Labour)
The bigger worry is looking at it year-on-year. Labour got an eight point increase in 2011 over our performance the year before. Given the typical trajectory of opposition leads over a parliament, a two point increase on our general election performance in year one is...not promising.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th May 2016, 06:36 PM
Sorry, I meant can be manipulated as to become rendered meaningless - all these comparisons between 2011, 2012, 2006 etc. are orchestrated by those who want to put a particular point-of-view forward.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th May 2016, 06:37 PM
Even if it accurately reflected which party controls the council (it doesn't), it still covers the whole country rather than just the places that had elections.
Obviously wrong given the large amounts of Liberal Democrat colouring.
Posted by: Danny 9th May 2016, 06:53 PM
Equally, the Conservatives got a one-point increase over their general election performance in 2011, whereas they've had a 6-point drop this time.
Whichever way it's looked at, the most crucial stat is Labour and the Tories' positions relative to each other - and on that score, Corbyn is so far proving slightly more of a success than Miliband.
Posted by: Qassändra 9th May 2016, 07:20 PM
Which makes the two point rise for Labour pretty damning - it's the key tell that Labour isn't the party benefiting from the government's unpopularity.
I don't think the most crucial stat is their relative positions at all. A government will almost always be unpopular in the mid-term and recover ground in the lead-up to a general election - they've got plenty of time to get back their support. An opposition has a different standard - it needs to be bolting ahead as far as it can early on in the first year or two when the government is unpopular, because it's only going to start shedding voters once the election comes around. A mild judder ahead the year after a general election is a dreadful performance in that regard, because history indicates the opposition generally does a fair bit worse come the general election than it did in its first set of council elections.
It feels like a futile argument to make given the point of Corbyn isn't electoral (which is why I really wish his supporters would stop trying to have their cake and eat it). But I really, really dispute the point that the other candidates would be doing 'just as badly' as Corbyn is, if only because at best he's doing as well as Ed Miliband and they were all a damned sight better than him. To claim that Corbyn is equivalent to Ed is to claim that everything in the last six months has had barely any impact on Labour's popularity with ordinary voters (and none of it would've been happening under any of the other three. Well, there'd have probably been attempts at union disaffiliation in the event of Liz, but what that would've resulted in is a different topic). I think you know that won't be true at all.
Posted by: popchartfreak 9th May 2016, 09:31 PM
14%, 3rd party ahead of UKIP, with no coverage, hype or expectations whatsoever. UKIP, constantly in the media, soundbites, spearheading a campaign they caused and large public awareness.
Yes, I guess one can make poll statistics tell any story one wants, particularly when it's not proportional. Or one (by which I mean the media) can just ignore the inconvenient ones (or as I like to call them, "results")
Tory/Labour neck-and-neck, think that means the electorate doesn't prefer one over the other. I'd suggest it's not a result that is based on enthusiasm for either one, it's (much like the last election) based on who appears to be the least-bad option. Good news folks, Cameron and Corbyn have left people unclear who's the worst so there's everything to play for. Bad news folks, both parties seem bent on splitting right down the middle any time soon. Good news folks, at least the Libdems can quietly get on with it with no-one noticing until the needless bickering gets on everybody's nerves...
Posted by: Qassändra 10th May 2016, 09:01 AM
The British Election Study has come to a similar conclusion...
Posted by: Danny 10th May 2016, 11:48 AM
I don't think the most crucial stat is their relative positions at all. A government will almost always be unpopular in the mid-term and recover ground in the lead-up to a general election - they've got plenty of time to get back their support. An opposition has a different standard - it needs to be bolting ahead as far as it can early on in the first year or two when the government is unpopular, because it's only going to start shedding voters once the election comes around. A mild judder ahead the year after a general election is a dreadful performance in that regard, because history indicates the opposition generally does a fair bit worse come the general election than it did in its first set of council elections.
It feels like a futile argument to make given the point of Corbyn isn't electoral (which is why I really wish his supporters would stop trying to have their cake and eat it). But I really, really dispute the point that the other candidates would be doing 'just as badly' as Corbyn is, if only because at best he's doing as well as Ed Miliband and they were all a damned sight better than him. To claim that Corbyn is equivalent to Ed is to claim that everything in the last six months has had barely any impact on Labour's popularity with ordinary voters (and none of it would've been happening under any of the other three. Well, there'd have probably been attempts at union disaffiliation in the event of Liz, but what that would've resulted in is a different topic). I think you know that won't be true at all.
Obviously I don't agree with that. Burnham was maybe a bit better than Miliband (though in hindsight I think I had wishful thinking towards him), the other two were worse.
The bottom line is the other 3 would've all offered a continuation of the previous 5 years (Blairite policies without a superstar-level leader like Blair to compensate). There is no reason to think it would've panned out any differently. Not only would they not have come close to the influence on government policy that Corbyn has achieved, they also would've done slightly worse electorally than Corbyn to boot. So what exactly is the incentive to go back to the previous way?
Yes, quite - the government does 5-6 points better than the average of their local elections performance over the whole of the term. But history also shows that the first-year performance is by far a government's best performance over a term, and that the average will be lower than 32% by the time we get to the general election.
Posted by: Qassändra 10th May 2016, 12:32 PM
The bottom line is the other 3 would've all offered a continuation of the previous 5 years (Blairite policies without a superstar-level leader like Blair to compensate).
ED MILIBAND DID NOT OFFER BLAIRITE POLICIES, THE WORD HAS LITERALLY NO MEANING IF SOFT LEFT AND NEW LABOUR ARE COUNTED AS THE SAME THING. PEOPLE IN ENGLAND WERE NOT TURNING AWAY FROM LABOUR BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT LABOUR WERE ABOUT TO ENFORCE AUSTERITY
In any case, Ed Miliband was perceived by most undecided voters as having absolutely zero leadership qualities whatsoever. It's not really something you could say would've been likely for Liz or Yvette (although I can imagine Yvette may have come across as prevaricating as well, she just didn't come across as downright strange as Ed did). In terms of gut feel that voters had for him, it would be almost impossible for the others to have not come across better. Naturally, we went for the sole candidate who didn't.
[citation needed]
[citation needed!!!]
Which probably indicates a level in the mid-30s at worst for the Conservatives again in 2020. And one in the high 20s/low-30s for Labour at best in 2020. Not that there's a hope in hell Labour will be above 30pc with Corbyn as leader at a general election.
Posted by: Danny 10th May 2016, 12:50 PM
Sorry, but you're completely changing your tune from the endless debates we had during the Miliband years. You yourself said at the time that Miliband was putting forward "centre-ground" policies, but that it was the only way to win the election. In the event, not only were they the wrong policies in principle, they didn't even win the election.
Ed Miliband occasionally saying "inequality is bad" is not enough to make him left-wing, when he was putting forward austerity policies that would've made inequality worse.
Again, I don't agree. Yvette Cooper was duller than Miliband, and Kendall would've come across as even more of an incompetent lightweight who'd be dominated by the Salmonds and Sturgeons of the world. Remember the Newsnight focus groups of swing voters saying Liz would be a worse leader than Corbyn?
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 10th May 2016, 01:34 PM
Citation needed.
He has momentum, grass roots, the young vote, the whole of the North.
If only a tiny part of the country, midlands and south, vote Tory and the rest of us don't, how does that a legitimate government make anyway?
The north will rally round Corbyn and so will London and swing seats. Without Scotland's Labour MPs, it will likely be a very small eked out victory or a hung parliament, but with real left views, and with socialism increasingly more popular and austerity less, Corbyn's popularity will only continue to grow.
Posted by: Danny 10th May 2016, 01:37 PM
Amusingly enough, the South was actually Labour's strongest region (in terms of swing from 2011, the like-for-like comparative point) on Thursday.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 10th May 2016, 01:43 PM
As the North will NEVER substantially vote Tory (and given the last vote, we're more anti-Tory than Scotland, so Sturgeon cannot sue that as part of an independence speel), even if there were net losses in votes there, any gains and increases NOW in the south tell a telling story. If that 31% of the vote includes increases in the south but dips in the north (which is still completely, solidly Labour) or dips in Scotland (which yes it does include) which is now SNP-land, then the statistics are not quite as straightforward as a plain-numbers game. It shows that Labour is coming for a win or a Hung Parliament under Corbyn - taking Tory south seats and adding them to the north and Wales. Remember, Labour nearly got as many votes as the Tories in the last two elections, as did Lib Dems back two, buut FPTP isn't so reliant on vote share as on seats, so again that above statistic in face of Labour gains in the south is not so straightforward.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 10th May 2016, 02:03 PM
Yvette for me would have been far better at uniting the party (not difficult given the splits resulting under Corbyn), though I reluctantly accept that we are stuck with Corbyn for the time being until someone a lot stronger and potentially more electable takes over in 2017/2018 and therefore should just get on with holding the government to account.
Anyway, going off on a tangent - it is interesting to see that Housing was the policy that cut through for Khan, something the party could perhaps build on given the balance of the electorate switching from owner occupiers to renters by the early 2020s. If the Labour party can show that the Conservatives through its Funding for Lending scheme and the introduction of Help to Buy have ( rather than actually helped) have simply enhanced and worsened the housing crisis much further by artifically propping up prices to support wealthy owner occupiers, they could be on to a winner in 4 years time.
Posted by: Steve201 11th May 2016, 08:56 PM
I have faith in John Healey - he's a great minister!
As for 'being stuck with Corbyn' I would say he is there due to a lack of ideas from the centrist leaders so as per the past year they will snipe from the sidelines and show the party to be divided which the willing media will lap up and unsure voters sure they won't vote labour, they'll be happy Corbyn lost the election and a blairite robot will take over in 2020!
Posted by: Steve201 12th May 2016, 02:38 PM
They do have a responsive show, though, where they can be taken to task over the coverage - hopefully someone will have taken the time to do that...
So Sir Michael Lyons has confirmed what we all know that the BBC feel pressured into being biased against The Labour Party and JC in particular when there is a Tory government - confirmed during todays debate about the future of the BBC!
Posted by: Steve201 12th May 2016, 09:37 PM
The Ulster Unionists have officially went into opposition in the N.Ireland assembly - the first time the consociational system of government has had an opposition.
There leader Mike Nesbitt surprised everyone at the last minute by making a speech while everyone was announcing Foster/McGuinness would be PMs again - always wanting to take the limelight!!
Posted by: richie 13th May 2016, 07:09 AM
How can we EVER EVER call them unbiased and impartial again?
Disgusting.
Ever since the future of the Beeb came into question - when Whippingdale became high executioner - their coverage has been hideously pro-Tory...I suspect by force. Hopefully now the white paper is out and the death isn't immediate (it'll be more one of a thousand cuts over a prolonged period) they might have the guts to return to impartiality.
Posted by: Steve201 13th May 2016, 03:12 PM
Great Quote on the elections from todays Independent
'As the political parties calm down after last week’s elections, all sensible people, included most newspapers and many Labour MPs, have agreed the outcome was that Labour lost in some places, which is a disaster for Corbyn, and won in other places, which is a disaster for Corbyn.'
He continues -
'There must be Labour MPs who haven’t slept properly since Corbyn became leader. They roll in all directions all night, shouting “Corbyn ate my custard” and “he wants to nationalise my porcupine” until their mum comes in and gives them a spoonful of Calpol.
It may be they’re right, and Labour isn’t likely to win a general election – partly because this is so difficult since losing Scotland. And Jeremy Corbyn is clearly to blame for that. If only Labour was led by someone who invaded Iraq more often, supported Trident and was keener on big business and more abusive towards the SNP, then the SNP voters of Glasgow would come back to Labour and apologise for being so silly.
It could be said Labour is coping fairly well, given that every day there are newspaper headlines declaring “Corbyn to force flowers to wear burqas”, and “Corbyn to replace army with non-competitive rambling society.” Some people might even see the size of the victory for Sadiq Khan in the election for Mayor of London as hugely encouraging for Labour.
After all, it forced Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, to try and excuse the Tory tactic of calling Sadiq Khan a “friend of terrorists” by saying it was “only right to hold someone up to scrutiny.” This seems fair; you can only truly know whether someone’s a friend of terrorists if you make statements in the House of Commons and repeat them daily in newspapers insisting they’re a friend of terrorists. This is why I’m concerned about Princess Anne, and Olly Murs and my next door neighbour. Without them ever being called a friend of terrorists, every day for a month in leaflets, they haven’t been held to proper scrutiny. For we know, they’re going backwards and forwards to Syria every weekend.
Fallon also said the Tory campaign was simply the “rough and tumble of politics.” This seems a reasonable way to describe 'making stuff up'. At the next election, Labour should distribute leaflets declaring that Fallon tortures llamas by stringing them upside down in his bedroom, forcing them to smoke Capstan full-strength cigarettes all day. Then he can be part of the fun of the 'rough and tumble of politics' as well.
The Conservatives were so much on the defensive after the London result, they announced that Zac Goldsmith’s mum had said her son was "the least racist person I know.” That pretty much clears it up then. The Tories are keen on scrutiny, and there’s no more watertight method for holding someone up to scrutiny than asking someone’s mum if their son is guilty. The problem is it’s possible the only other people Zac’s mum knows are Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen and a biker gang from Alabama.'
Another way of looking at the current situation is that Labour is winning already. Every time the government announces a new policy as being vital and marvellous and exciting, a few days later they have to cancel it. The cuts in tax credits and disability benefits, and the attempt to force all schools to become academies, have all faced such opposition they’ve been withdrawn.
But all sensible people agree the most effective way to support Labour is to be like one of these angry football supporters who scream their manager should be sacked if they lose one game. Except they'll go even further and yell: 'How dare we win the election, you're useless, sack him.'
Posted by: Qassändra 13th May 2016, 05:08 PM
God Mark Steel is the most tedious straw manner ever.
Posted by: Steve201 13th May 2016, 06:08 PM
Haha I thought you wouldn't like it. It sounds like something Danny would write 
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 13th May 2016, 06:12 PM
OMG he has it completely SPOT ON!!
With BBC - BBC!! bias against Labour, following the Tory whipping-hound media's line of unelectability in spite of all evidence, the threat the neo-liberal Establishment feels towards the post-war consensus is palpable. He is completely right. Those centrist Labourites are pretty much throwing the toys out of the pram over the Will. Of. The. People.
When Corbyn smashes the election with a Hung Parliament (without the help of Scotland, who are quite content to let the Tories in to prove a point, throwing the North East under the nearest Tory Election Bus), then people will change their tunes.
Posted by: Steve201 13th May 2016, 06:37 PM
A Tory Election bus which probably overspent it's limit on expenses!
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 13th May 2016, 06:40 PM
EXXXXXACTLY!!!!!!!!
Which the BBC and mainstream media (except channel 4 ) will conveniently ignore! Just like their Panama Papers and Muslim Racism Row (at same time as the manufactured Labour/ Israel row), conveniently enough.
Posted by: Qassändra 13th May 2016, 10:13 PM
What a horrible thing to say about Danny!
Posted by: Qassändra 13th May 2016, 10:13 PM
LOL
Posted by: Steve201 14th May 2016, 08:56 PM
LOL
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services