May 9, 20169 yr What map? 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.
May 9, 20169 yr 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) 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.
May 9, 20169 yr 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. 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.
May 9, 20169 yr 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. Obviously wrong given the large amounts of Liberal Democrat colouring.
May 9, 20169 yr 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. 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.
May 9, 20169 yr 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. 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. 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. 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.
May 9, 20169 yr Obviously wrong given the large amounts of Liberal Democrat colouring. 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") :P 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...
May 10, 20169 yr 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. The British Election Study has come to a similar conclusion...
May 10, 20169 yr 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. 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? The British Election Study has come to a similar conclusion... 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.
May 10, 20169 yr 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). 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. Not only would they not have come close to the influence on government policy that Corbyn has achieved, [citation needed] they also would've done slightly worse electorally than Corbyn to boot. [citation needed!!!] 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. 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.
May 10, 20169 yr 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 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. 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. 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?
May 10, 20169 yr 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. 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.
May 10, 20169 yr Amusingly enough, the South was actually Labour's strongest region (in terms of swing from 2011, the like-for-like comparative point) on Thursday. Edited May 10, 20169 yr by Danny
May 10, 20169 yr 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.
May 10, 20169 yr 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.
May 11, 20169 yr 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!
May 12, 20169 yr 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... 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!
May 12, 20169 yr 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!!
May 13, 20169 yr The BBC's coverage is DESPICABLE. 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.
Create an account or sign in to comment