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.

 

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.

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!

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.

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)

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

BBC have always had a fondness for the Tories - but recently that fondness has turned into puppetry.

Dear me.

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.

 

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.

Edited May 7, 20169 yr by Danny

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.

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Edited May 7, 20169 yr by Danny

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!

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 :P

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.

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

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.

#Stat4Qassändra

 

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm82/TheMagicPosition86/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-08%20at%2010.45.08_zpsthed4wow.png

#Stat4Qassändra

 

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm82/TheMagicPosition86/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-08%20at%2010.45.08_zpsthed4wow.png

 

I'm sure he's already seen it, and filled it under "M" for misleading.

Yes but you've missed my point entirely which is that stats are meaningless and can say anything you want them to.

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by Doctor Blind