Kezia Dugdale has publicly backed Owen Smith, although at this point does anyone really give a shite what the Edinburgh branch office thinks? Scotland certainly doesn't.

 

It's really hilarious how SHE of all people thinks she can give out lectures on how to win elections.

It's really hilarious how SHE of all people thinks she can give out lectures on how to win elections.

I know! And that pesky Sadiq as well.

 

Oh wait.

It's really hilarious how SHE of all people thinks she can give out lectures on how to win elections.

Well it's not like people listen to the ones that can either.

 

I also love how Corbyn within six months went from being the one who would single-handedly bring back Scotland to having absolutely nothing to do with the result because it was all systematic and generations in the making (but at the same time entirely Jim Murphy and Kezia Dugdale's fault)

I know! And that pesky Sadiq as well.

 

Oh wait.

 

Khan actually did worse (in terms of improvement on the 2015 performance) in May than Corbyn did in the local elections. Khan had a lead of 9% over Goldsmith, which is pretty much identical to the lead Labour had in London in 2015; Corbyn led the Tories by 1% in the locals, which is a 4% swing to Labour compared to 2015.

 

Admittedly racism probably was a bit of a drag on Khan's performance, but even so, only matching Ed Miliband in London is hardly evidence that Khan is some electoral wizard who knows how to appeal to northern "traditional" Labour seats and to non-metropolitan swing voters - especially since one of the reasons he gave was that Corbyn wasn't enough of a cheerleader for the Remain campaign.

Khan actually did worse (in terms of improvement on the 2015 performance) in May than Corbyn did in the local elections. Khan had a lead of 9% over Goldsmith, which is pretty much identical to the lead Labour had in London in 2015; Corbyn led the Tories by 1% in the locals, which is a 4% swing to Labour compared to 2015.

 

Admittedly racism probably was a bit of a drag on Khan's performance, but even so, only matching Ed Miliband in London is hardly evidence that Khan is some electoral wizard who knows how to appeal to northern "traditional" Labour seats and to non-metropolitan swing voters - especially since one of the reasons he gave was that Corbyn wasn't enough of a cheerleader for the Remain campaign.

His personal ratings in London compared to Corbyn's kind of put paid to the idea that the latter was actually a help during Sadiq's campaign.

 

That aside, it's pretty damning when the leader of the party is basically at war with its most popular elected politician. Especially given that (unless May does actually abandon them) we'll be seeing a number of probably Labour mayors over the next couple of years with their own direct mandate from such leafy "metropolitan" areas as St Helens, Rochdale and Middlesbrough. The likes of Khan, Burnham, and co will be far more in touch with their electorate than Jez will.

 

(also let's not get trapped into thinking that just because it's got a lot of hipsters and skyscrapers in some areas, none of London has anything in common with the swing areas elsewhere)

His personal ratings in London compared to Corbyn's kind of put paid to the idea that the latter was actually a help during Sadiq's campaign.

 

That aside, it's pretty damning when the leader of the party is basically at war with its most popular elected politician. Especially given that (unless May does actually abandon them) we'll be seeing a number of probably Labour mayors over the next couple of years with their own direct mandate from such leafy "metropolitan" areas as St Helens, Rochdale and Middlesbrough. The likes of Khan, Burnham, and co will be far more in touch with their electorate than Jez will.

 

(also let's not get trapped into thinking that just because it's got a lot of hipsters and skyscrapers in some areas, none of London has anything in common with the swing areas elsewhere)

 

I didn't actually say Corbyn was a help to Khan, as such. I said that Corbyn performed better in the contests he was responsible for (the English council elections) than Khan did in the contest he was responsible for, if improvement on 2015 is the metric.

 

And I think the EU Referendum showed that London really is completely different politically to the rest of the country. Though for what it's worth, Khan didn't do well in the remaining swing boroughs in London either, except for Wandsworth (where he might have had a "hometown" bonus) -- he got beaten heavily by Goldsmith in Croydon, Harrow and Barnet, which all have top marginal seats.

Edited August 23, 20168 yr by Danny

Measure it by absolute percentage rather than relative lead and it's not as cut and dried. 32% is unprecedentedly poor for an opposition one year in. Nobody seriously thinks the Conservatives will get 31% at the next election, whereas it's rare to find an opposition that gets a higher percentage of the vote at the general election than it did at the local elections one year in. The boroughs argument ignores that there are plenty of safe seats that skew the vote in those boroughs as well (you're never going to catch a Labour politician coming within a sniff of winning in Croydon South, for example), so without constituency data it's not really a fair comparison. Although the ward data is out there, so if anyone's got a lot of time on their hands...

Measure it by absolute percentage rather than relative lead and it's not as cut and dried. 32% is unprecedentedly poor for an opposition one year in. Nobody seriously thinks the Conservatives will get 31% at the next election, whereas it's rare to find an opposition that gets a higher percentage of the vote at the general election than it did at the local elections one year in. The boroughs argument ignores that there are plenty of safe seats that skew the vote in those boroughs as well (you're never going to catch a Labour politician coming within a sniff of winning in Croydon South, for example), so without constituency data it's not really a fair comparison. Although the ward data is out there, so if anyone's got a lot of time on their hands...

 

People on Politicalbetting and UK Polling Report did have that time on their hands, which is what I'm basing my comments on :P The ward data excludes postal votes, which is fair to say would skew heavily to the Tories - yet, even without postal votes, Khan still narrowly lost Croydon Central, which is #3 on Labour's target list. Compare that to Corbyn notionally "winning" constituencies as far down as Milton Keynes (#83 on the target list) on the same day.

 

The only (semi-)marginal Khan showed significant improvement on 2015 was in Battersea, but again it's unclear how much of that was influenced by it being next door to Khan's own seat.

People on Politicalbetting and UK Polling Report did have that time on their hands, which is what I'm basing my comments on :P The ward data excludes postal votes, which is fair to say would skew heavily to the Tories - yet, even without postal votes, Khan still narrowly lost Croydon Central, which is #3 on Labour's target list. Compare that to Corbyn notionally "winning" constituencies as far down as Milton Keynes (#83 on the target list) on the same day.

 

The only (semi-)marginal Khan showed significant improvement on 2015 was in Battersea, but again it's unclear how much of that was influenced by it being next door to Khan's own seat.

The other caveat being that in an election where voters are given two votes (and therefore the freedom to vote for who they like most first if they would ordinarily vote tactically), an increase in the vote on first preferences alone on the year before isn't a shabby result at all. He won Croydon Central on second preferences.

 

By comparison, Labour lost council seats in Milton Keynes this year (and both parliamentary seats have 8,000+ majorities). Interrogating the validity of Labour's few winners at the moment feels a little like replying to the offer of a fizzy drink in the desert with a question on whether it's been in the fridge or not.

The other caveat being that in an election where voters are given two votes (and therefore the freedom to vote for who they like most first if they would ordinarily vote tactically), an increase in the vote on first preferences alone on the year before isn't a shabby result at all. He won Croydon Central on second preferences.

 

By comparison, Labour lost council seats in Milton Keynes this year (and both parliamentary seats have 8,000+ majorities). Interrogating the validity of Labour's few winners at the moment feels a little like replying to the offer of a fizzy drink in the desert with a question on whether it's been in the fridge or not.

 

The idea that AV affected things isn't very convincing, especially since the combined Labour+Tory share of first preferences in the mayoral election was actually slightly more than in the 2015 election. In any case, if we're talking a direct comparison with 2015, then since that election didn't use AV, surely first preferences is the only reliable way to do it - and on that score, Khan showed no progress or perhaps with postal votes included even slipped backwards from the 2015 performance in Croydon Central.

 

Labour lost council seats in Milton Keynes compared to 2012, which is again not a like-for-like comparison since that was the mid-term of a parliament compared to Year One of a parliament where the government always has a honeymoon effect lingering. The ideal comparison for this year's local elections is with 2011 - but since there were no London elections in 2011, the best that can be managed to see who did better between Corbyn and Khan is a comparison with 2015 - and on that score, I really can't see how it's in question that Corbyn winning well over half of Labour's top 100 target seats (including seats right near the bottom of the top 100 like Elmet & Rothwell, Milton Keynes South and Redditch with swings of 8-9% from 2015) is empirically better than Khan losing in every London target seat bar a wafer-thin win in Battersea, with most targets showing zero or a negative swing from 2015.

 

You're right that actually picking potential winners of general elections from Labour right now is like trawling through a desert, but it's about who can get the least-bad result - and May's results show Corbyn has a better idea than Khan does, and certainly a MUCH better idea than Dugdale does.

Edited August 23, 20168 yr by Danny

The idea that AV affected things isn't very convincing, especially since the combined Labour+Tory share of first preferences in the mayoral election was actually slightly more than in the 2015 election. In any case, if we're talking a direct comparison with 2015, then since that election didn't use AV, surely first preferences is the only reliable way to do it - and on that score, Khan showed no progress or perhaps with postal votes included even slipped backwards from the 2015 performance in Croydon Central.

 

Labour lost council seats in Milton Keynes compared to 2012, which is again not a like-for-like comparison since that was the mid-term of a parliament compared to Year One of a parliament where the government always has a honeymoon effect lingering. The ideal comparison for this year's local elections is with 2011 - but since there were no London elections in 2011, the best that can be managed to see who did better between Corbyn and Khan is a comparison with 2015 - and on that score, I really can't see how it's in question that Corbyn winning well over half of Labour's top 100 target seats (including seats right near the bottom of the top 100 like Elmet & Rothwell, Milton Keynes South and Redditch with swings of 8-9% from 2015) is empirically better than Khan losing in every London target seat bar a wafer-thin win in Battersea, with most targets showing zero or a negative swing from 2015.

 

You're right that actually picking potential winners of general elections from Labour right now is like trawling through a desert, but it's about who can get the least-bad result - and May's results show Corbyn has a better idea than Khan does.

Because the result Corbyn got in those seats didn't indicate Labour strength so much as Conservative weakness? We got 31% of the vote nationally - historically appallingly low for an opposition a year in. That the Conservatives fell 7 percent but Labour gained 1 percent in vote share should be the giveaway that the swing and the result don't represent Corbyn's strength and ability to win those votes. Governments always lose support in the mid-term. What does it say when the opposition isn't the one benefiting from that? Particularly when oppositions almost without fail do worse in the general election on vote share than they do in their first set of council elections - and when governments almost without fail do better.

 

I will also add that it's a slightly unfair comparison, in that had Labour performed nationally in its target seats as it had done in its London targets in 2015 it would've probably been the biggest party - a 7 percent swing and four of its seven seats lost in 2010 to the Tories taken back (plus the Lib Dems, but then we took those seats everywhere so those aren't especially London-centric successes). Take London out of the equation and Labour had a net loss of seats to the Tories in 2015 (and Sadiq was in charge of the 2015 London campaign, but obviously your mileage may vary on how much credit he can take for the result), so it feels a little harsh to condemn him for equalling what was one of the few areas where we actually did okay in 2015.

Also before we get all the revisionism in, Kezia Dugdale's entire platform for Scottish Labour this year was predicated on the 'go left' prescription. Probably not the platform she'd prescribe for the national party at a general election, given the choice. And given her weaknesses as a candidate (poor delivery, lack of gravitas etc) can be boiled down to things that are pretty much irrelevant to the things she's advising for the national party...

Because the result Corbyn got in those seats didn't indicate Labour strength so much as Conservative weakness? We got 31% of the vote nationally - historically appallingly low for an opposition a year in. That the Conservatives fell 7 percent but Labour gained 1 percent in vote share should be the giveaway that the swing and the result don't represent Corbyn's strength and ability to win those votes. Governments always lose support in the mid-term. What does it say when the opposition isn't the one benefiting from that? Particularly when oppositions almost without fail do worse in the general election on vote share than they do in their first set of council elections - and when governments almost without fail do better.

 

To be pedantic, you still seem to be using the early BBC estimate which was made before all the results were in - the final Rallings & Thrasher figures for the national voteshares were Labour 33%, Conservatives 32%. Not that it really matters, since on either set of figures, Labour had a 1% lead, and the only thing that matters in elections is how you do relative to the competition, especially in a first-past-the-post system.

 

It's also not true at all that governments typically do much better in a general election than they do in their honeymoon first-year local elections. The Tories in 2015 actually did slightly worse than they did in 2011, and even in Thatcher's first term (the textbook example of a government recovery), they only did 3% better in the general election than in the 1980 locals. If history's any guide, 32% will be quite close to what the Tories get at the next election if the parliament runs to full term (I'm assuming we don't think Theresa May's current honeymoon polling is any more predictive of the next election than Brown's double-digit leads in the summer of 2007).

Edited August 23, 20168 yr by Danny

I will also add that it's a slightly unfair comparison, in that had Labour performed nationally in its target seats as it had done in its London targets in 2015 it would've probably been the biggest party - a 7 percent swing and four of its seven seats lost in 2010 to the Tories taken back (plus the Lib Dems, but then we took those seats everywhere so those aren't especially London-centric successes). Take London out of the equation and Labour had a net loss of seats to the Tories in 2015 (and Sadiq was in charge of the 2015 London campaign, but obviously your mileage may vary on how much credit he can take for the result), so it feels a little harsh to condemn him for equalling what was one of the few areas where we actually did okay in 2015.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point here? London was one of Labour's successful areas in 2015, because it's trending long-term towards Labour, just like big cities are trending to left-wing parties right around the world. That doesn't change that Corbyn managed to add more votes to Labour's 2015 "baseline support" in most English local councils, than Khan managed to add to their baseline support in london.

After all the things that should have damaged Corbyn's reputation, which includes, but is not limited to, terrorist sympathizing, being employed by Iran's propaganda network, not doing enough to challenge the revival of Antisemitism within the Labour Party, the allegations of allowing racism in the party to go unchallenged, not playing a big enough part in keeping Britain in the EU, losing the support of the majority of his MPs and seeing the majority of his front bench ditching him, it would be amazing if the one thing that finally pushed him out of the Labour leadership was lying about his experience on public transport.

To be pedantic, you still seem to be using the early BBC estimate which was made before all the results were in - the final Rallings & Thrasher figures for the national voteshares were Labour 33%, Conservatives 32%. Not that it really matters, since on either set of figures, Labour had a 1% lead, and the only thing that matters in elections is how you do relative to the competition, especially in a first-past-the-post system.

 

It's also not true at all that governments typically do much better in a general election than they do in their honeymoon first-year local elections. The Tories in 2015 actually did slightly worse than they did in 2011, and even in Thatcher's first term (the textbook example of a government recovery), they only did 3% better in the general election than in the 1980 locals.

 

I was going to caveat 2011 as the obvious exception given the Lib Dem collapse and the rise of Ukip but Wikipedia LIED to me and told me they got 35% when I thought they were using Rallings & Thrasher so I FOOLISHLY GAVE IT A MISS :angry:

 

The only thing that matters in general elections is how you do relative to the competition. That doesn't apply to midterm elections for the very obvious reason that a small lead for the opposition at a local election doesn't give any indication that the opposition is going to do well in a general election. Therefore the kinds of things you want to be looking for are a. *big* leads, b. preferably big leads based on votes taken away from the governing party (this is entirely anecdotal but I would be astounded if many other seats contradicted the experience of everyone I know of the 2016 locals as an 'L T Y'-free zone when it came to canvassing sheets), and c. voteshares above what you would expect at the next general election. The Rallings and Thrasher graph of the last 30 years has a certain rhythm every five years, and it isn't a pretty one for opposition parties that don't feature the above three factors in their result.

 

http://i66.tinypic.com/2ex4mu1.png

 

If history's any guide, 32% will be quite close to what the Tories get at the next election if the parliament runs to full term (I'm assuming we don't think Theresa May's current honeymoon polling is any more predictive of the next election than Brown's double-digit leads in the summer of 2007).

I think it is likely to be more predictive, but mainly as I think Theresa May is a less flawed politician and far more competent operator compared with Gordon Brown. Plus, I think that the principles of the general political outlook of 'Mayism' command more public support than...whatever Brownism in government rather than theory turned out to be in the end (QUICK, LAUNCH ANOTHER INITIATIVE)

 

On the other hand, she'll have to deal with problems Brown never had to deal with (everyone's shopping basket going up by about 15% over the next year as hedging and futures contracts expire; a majority of 12; a public that prefers Brexit to the EU, prefers the EEA to hard Brexit, but prefers the EU to the EEA, meaning it will therefore likely be pissed off with whatever option we go with - but then, she gets to choose the one that likely does Tory support the least damage). But I would be shocked if she had the kind of implosion that Brown had, especially given that implosion came from Brown doing something that completely cut against everything he sold himself as up until that point. I have a feeling Theresa May is probably more canny than that.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point here? London was one of Labour's successful areas in 2015, because it's trending long-term towards Labour, just like big cities are trending to left-wing parties right around the world. That doesn't change that Corbyn managed to add more votes to Labour's 2015 "baseline support" in most English local councils, than Khan managed to add to their baseline support in london.

Big cities trending towards Labour didn't really aid Labour in many city swing seats against the Tories elsewhere in the country. Labour's result in the capital outdid the party's performance at the council and EU elections the year before hugely, which makes me think that there were factors involved beyond just demographics. Nonetheless, I take the view that someone who advanced a little on a fairly good result (which they oversaw to begin with) is probably better placed to talk about electoral success than someone who pretty much stood still on an awful result the year prior despite the collapse of the other party nationally.

After all the things that should have damaged Corbyn's reputation, which includes, but is not limited to, terrorist sympathizing, being employed by Iran's propaganda network, not doing enough to challenge the revival of Antisemitism within the Labour Party, the allegations of allowing racism in the party to go unchallenged, not playing a big enough part in keeping Britain in the EU, losing the support of the majority of his MPs and seeing the majority of his front bench ditching him, it would be amazing if the one thing that finally pushed him out of the Labour leadership was lying about his experience on public transport.

It would be, but then it won't.

I think it is likely to be more predictive, but mainly as I think Theresa May is a less flawed politician and far more competent operator compared with Gordon Brown. Plus, I think that the principles of the general political outlook of 'Mayism' command more public support than...whatever Brownism in government rather than theory turned out to be in the end (QUICK, LAUNCH ANOTHER INITIATIVE)

 

On the other hand, she'll have to deal with problems Brown never had to deal with (everyone's shopping basket going up by about 15% over the next year as hedging and futures contracts expire; a majority of 12; a public that prefers Brexit to the EU, prefers the EEA to hard Brexit, but prefers the EU to the EEA, meaning it will therefore likely be pissed off with whatever option we go with - but then, she gets to choose the one that likely does Tory support the least damage). But I would be shocked if she had the kind of implosion that Brown had, especially given that implosion came from Brown doing something that completely cut against everything he sold himself as up until that point. I have a feeling Theresa May is probably more canny than that.

 

But the thing is that Prime Ministers who take over in mid-term, without a general election, seem to have a particular advantage at first. They get the best of both worlds, because they get all the authority that being PM and going to summits with Angela Merkel provides, but, because they haven't (yet) been seen grubbing for votes in general elections, they're also viewed as not being "typical politicians" who are saying things to protect their position - essentially they get seen as like benevolent and un-corrupt monarchs. But that will change when a general election is coming, because, whatever her other strengths, the very fact she'll be competing in a campaign will drag her much more into the "typical politician" sphere than she is right now (even if she doesn't implode as spectacularly as Brown, there's also the example of John Major, whose honeymoon polling got close to 50% - well above the actual result in the '92 election).

Also, why do you say that Labour's results in 2015 in London were better than in 2014?

After all the things that should have damaged Corbyn's reputation, which includes, but is not limited to, terrorist sympathizing, being employed by Iran's propaganda network, not doing enough to challenge the revival of Antisemitism within the Labour Party, the allegations of allowing racism in the party to go unchallenged, not playing a big enough part in keeping Britain in the EU, losing the support of the majority of his MPs and seeing the majority of his front bench ditching him, it would be amazing if the one thing that finally pushed him out of the Labour leadership was lying about his experience on public transport.

 

Had a mutually assertive expression of points of view with a long-time good friend t'other weekend at our comics fanzine collation in London: he's a fairly moderate staunch Labour activist, gets to meet those members who bother to turn up to Enfield, but seems to be of the view that 170 Labour MP's are just trying to get rid of Corbyn to save their own skin, (and by inference lying about his leadership qualities). My view is that by inference that means the official Labour Party is essentially saying "don't vote for these 170 lying MP's" in a sort of mass suicide pact, and that Jeremy Corbyn is a paragon of virtue who wouldn't DREAM of campaigning to get rid of the duly elected leader of the party. Except for Kinnock. Oh, and Smith. Blair he wants tried as a war criminal so we could expect that one. Brown too, of course, not keen on him. Miliband? There MUST have been one he supported....! :P