RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:Local elections were basically a score draw. If this carries on we're set for another hung parliament, so it could come down to who has enough seats to prop up the Tories or Labour, and whether anyone will want to

*no score draw

Digby wrote:Local elections were basically a score draw. If this carries on we're set for another hung parliament, so it could come down to who has enough seats to prop up the Tories or Labour, and whether anyone will want to

Lol 2310 (+59) vs 1330 (-31) is a draw? Ludicrous.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Local elections were basically a score draw. If this carries on we're set for another hung parliament, so it could come down to who has enough seats to prop up the Tories or Labour, and whether anyone will want to

Lol 2310 (+59) vs 1330 (-31) is a draw? Ludicrous.

The change on the night or lack thereof. UKIP imploding makes it a little harder to judge, but for the big two parties the status quo was maintained.

Labour’s results in context:

More like Labour missed an open goal- had they done what was predicted, May and govt could have toppled as Tory MPs panicked over their seats.

Its strange that the vote was deal level at 35%, though many of the Tories lost seats were down to boundary changes (-16 in my manor).

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Local elections were basically a score draw. If this carries on we're set for another hung parliament, so it could come down to who has enough seats to prop up the Tories or Labour, and whether anyone will want to

Lol 2310 (+59) vs 1330 (-31) is a draw? Ludicrous.

The change on the night or lack thereof. UKIP imploding makes it a little harder to judge, but for the big two parties the status quo was maintained.

Tories lost councils, Labour didn't. They would have lost more of it was not for ukip imploding. They have been severely weakened, strong areas turned to vulnerable across the board. It is similar to the general election, the current Labour strategy doesn't cherry pick that much, they target almost everything. It will pay off in the long run.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Local elections were basically a score draw. If this carries on we're set for another hung parliament, so it could come down to who has enough seats to prop up the Tories or Labour, and whether anyone will want to

Lol 2310 (+59) vs 1330 (-31) is a draw? Ludicrous.

The number of councilors is irrelevant as some councils have more than others. Labour neither won nor lost overall
control of any councils, the Tories lost only 2. For all intents & purposes that's a draw

When life imitates art.

My Week: Jeremy Corbyn*

May 5 2018, 12:01am, The Times

Monday
We’re all meeting in my kitchen, again. I’m in my silver tracksuit. You might expect me to be making jam, but that’s a smear. On my elbow. Of old jam.

“The important thing,” says Seumas Milne, “is to manage expectations.”

Paul Mason says that Amber Rudd’s resignation is the first domino in the collapse of neoliberal hegemony pending global revolution.

Seumas says this is the sort of thing he is talking about.

“Shut up,” says Len McCluskey. “It could happen. We’re obviously about to storm the local elections. And all this antisemitism rubbish has been revealed to be a conspiracy hatched by Jeremy’s enemies.”


Jon from Momentum asks which enemies. Ken Livingstone says we all know which enemies. Then there’s a big argument about whether Ken should even be here, which we eventually settle, conclusively, by all agreeing to pretend he isn’t.

“The fact is,” says Diane Abbott, “we shouldn’t get cawwied away. We need a wealistic timetable for when the government might fall.”

“I reckon Friday,” says John McDonnell. “Making Jeremy prime minister by Sunday.”

“Don’t be ridiculous,” I say. “I’m taking Sunday off.”

Tuesday
I’m sitting in the Commons next to Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, while Sajid Javid gives his first speech as home secretary. None of us are really listening.

“How dare he,” says John, “suggest he knows more about the concerns of immigrant minorities than you!”

“Thanks,” I say.

John says he meant Diane.

“Oh,” I say.

“Seriously though,” says John. “These people are about to be taught a lesson. After all this? I don’t know anybody who’d vote Conservative!”

We all agree this is very telling.

“Although,” I say, after a while, “did you ever?”

John thinks about this. Then he nods across to the other side and says, “them”.

“I think they still might, though,” I say.

Wednesday
I’m preparing for PMQs. The Tories lost a big vote on their Brexit plans in the House of Lords the other day so everybody says I should attack them about that.

“It’s a little thing,” says Keir Starmer, “but shouldn’t we be a bit more clear what our better plans are?”

“Don’t be stupid,” says Seumas. “Our plan is for a non-Tory Brexit. Which is obviously better.”

“Yes but why?” asks Keir.

“Because it isn’t Tory,” says John McDonnell, as though to an idiot.

Keir is still fretting. Honestly, sometimes I worry about him. So Seumas has to spell out that all Tory things are bad. Likewise all Lib Dem things. And the more we can explain to anybody who likes these things that they’re absolute, irredeemable scum who are going to hell, the more likely they’ll be to vote for us instead.

Keir says this plan seems to have a flaw.

“Actually he’s right,” says John. “You left out the Blairites.”

Thursday
At Labour HQ. It’s election day and we’re managing expectations by telling people we’re going to do incredibly well in London, but without mentioning that Britain is on the cusp of socialist nirvana. Because nobody likes a gloater.

I’ve also been saying people should vote to send a message.

“Is nobody else worried,” says Emily Thornberry, “that they might want to send one to us?”

Jon from Momentum has turned up in a baseball cap and on his hoverboard. He wants all of our activists to spend the day wearing badges with my face on them, because I’m the big star.

“You know who else wanted people to wear badges with a star on them?” says Ken Livingstone, eagerly.

“Who keeps letting him in?” says Emily.

Friday
The results are crawling in. We haven’t taken Wandsworth, Barnet, Swindon or anywhere else much. Ken Livingstone is on Sky News talking about Hitler. I can’t pretend it’s the day I’d hoped for.

“I just don’t understand,” says Len McCluskey, “how we failed to persuade all those evil scum bastards to vote for us.”

“We’ve still got my fellow kids!” says Jon from Momentum, who is 60.

“Our only failure,” says Seumas Milne, “was expectation management.”

Exactly, I say. Next election, we need to expect a little less.

“That,” says Emily Thornberry, “I’ll manage.”
*according to Hugo Rifkind

belgarion wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Local elections were basically a score draw. If this carries on we're set for another hung parliament, so it could come down to who has enough seats to prop up the Tories or Labour, and whether anyone will want to

Lol 2310 (+59) vs 1330 (-31) is a draw? Ludicrous.

The number of councilors is irrelevant as some councils have more than others. Labour neither won nor lost overall
control of any councils, the Tories lost only 2. For all intents & purposes that's a draw

I disagree. Let's take an example of Wandsworth, Labour got more votes than the tories, but Tories won the council. That indicates that Tories held on with thin majorities to those seats in many cases. This dynamic is repeated across the country. Tories are weak all over the country now, very few safe seats. That is a strong position for Labour to be in, but Rome wasn't built in a day. It's taking time to rebuild trust in the face of strong media propaganda.

.........

Zhivago wrote:

belgarion wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Lol 2310 (+59) vs 1330 (-31) is a draw? Ludicrous.

The number of councilors is irrelevant as some councils have more than others. Labour neither won nor lost overall
control of any councils, the Tories lost only 2. For all intents & purposes that's a draw

I disagree. Let's take an example of Wandsworth, Labour got more votes than the tories, but Tories won the council. That indicates that Tories held on with thin majorities to those seats in many cases. This dynamic is repeated across the country. Tories are weak all over the country now, very few safe seats. That is a strong position for Labour to be in, but Rome wasn't built in a day. It's taking time to rebuild trust in the face of strong media propaganda.

Who has control of Wandsworth council, who has the most Wandsworth coucilors? Think you will find it is the Tories, therfore the
Tories 'won' Wandsworth. So following your line of reasoning even though the Tories are weak all over the country & have few safe seats
& Labour are in a strong position they STILL can't win a council the specifically targeted to win. Does not bode well for them in a GE

TBF Labour did very well in Wandsworth, upping its vote and increasing its councillors. In fact, generally they performed extremely well in London.
Problem for them is that this was not matched elsewhere. In some places, labour did reasonably well, in others it lost seats and went backwards.
The Tory vote held up remarkably well for a Government of 8 years and in obvious difficulty across a range of issues. The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.

fivepointer wrote:The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.

They are if there is a credible, centrist oppo.......which there isn’t and is unlikely to be in the near future.
This Govt must be one of the most unpopular in decades - NHS, Windrush, Brexit, Grenfell - and is incredibly weak and unstable - minority government and unpopular PM - and yet Labour are barely making a dent.

fivepointer wrote:TBF Labour did very well in Wandsworth, upping its vote and increasing its councillors. In fact, generally they performed extremely well in London.
Problem for them is that this was not matched elsewhere. In some places, labour did reasonably well, in others it lost seats and went backwards.
The Tory vote held up remarkably well for a Government of 8 years and in obvious difficulty across a range of issues. The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.

The analysis by experts showed that they suffered in leave areas. Which means that the current Labour strategy of being ambiguous about Brexit is the safest option for them. If they came out stronger for remain, they'd suffer more from this effect.

belgarion wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

belgarion wrote:
The number of councilors is irrelevant as some councils have more than others. Labour neither won nor lost overall
control of any councils, the Tories lost only 2. For all intents & purposes that's a draw

I disagree. Let's take an example of Wandsworth, Labour got more votes than the tories, but Tories won the council. That indicates that Tories held on with thin majorities to those seats in many cases. This dynamic is repeated across the country. Tories are weak all over the country now, very few safe seats. That is a strong position for Labour to be in, but Rome wasn't built in a day. It's taking time to rebuild trust in the face of strong media propaganda.

Who has control of Wandsworth council, who has the most Wandsworth coucilors? Think you will find it is the Tories, therfore the
Tories 'won' Wandsworth. So following your line of reasoning even though the Tories are weak all over the country & have few safe seats
& Labour are in a strong position they STILL can't win a council the specifically targeted to win. Does not bode well for them in a GE

On the contrary, the BBC analysis showed that the projected vote shares point to a hung parliament with a Labour and SNP coalition ruling, if a GE took place. That's only from the current situation and not counting the effect of the rules that require media to be impartial during election period.

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.

They are if there is a credible, centrist oppo.......which there isn’t and is unlikely to be in the near future.
This Govt must be one of the most unpopular in decades - NHS, Windrush, Brexit, Grenfell - and is incredibly weak and unstable - minority government and unpopular PM - and yet Labour are barely making a dent.

A new Blair would have this wrapped up already. And there'd be much more panic in the Conservative party with many MPs worried about their own seats, a number know they'll be in a fight as of today, but they're miles of thinking they can't win

Zhivago wrote:

belgarion wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I disagree. Let's take an example of Wandsworth, Labour got more votes than the tories, but Tories won the council. That indicates that Tories held on with thin majorities to those seats in many cases. This dynamic is repeated across the country. Tories are weak all over the country now, very few safe seats. That is a strong position for Labour to be in, but Rome wasn't built in a day. It's taking time to rebuild trust in the face of strong media propaganda.

Who has control of Wandsworth council, who has the most Wandsworth coucilors? Think you will find it is the Tories, therfore the
Tories 'won' Wandsworth. So following your line of reasoning even though the Tories are weak all over the country & have few safe seats
& Labour are in a strong position they STILL can't win a council the specifically targeted to win. Does not bode well for them in a GE

On the contrary, the BBC analysis showed that the projected vote shares point to a hung parliament with a Labour and SNP coalition ruling, if a GE took place. That's only from the current situation and not counting the effect of the rules that require media to be impartial during election period.

I think a Labour/SNP coalition looks the most likely outcome. Though I never thought I'd see the SNP in government being the party you'd hope would provide the sanity

fivepointer wrote:TBF Labour did very well in Wandsworth, upping its vote and increasing its councillors. In fact, generally they performed extremely well in London.
Problem for them is that this was not matched elsewhere. In some places, labour did reasonably well, in others it lost seats and went backwards.
The Tory vote held up remarkably well for a Government of 8 years and in obvious difficulty across a range of issues. The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.

Perzackly.

I really wish there was a good party, with good leaders to vote for.

Zhivago wrote:

belgarion wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I disagree. Let's take an example of Wandsworth, Labour got more votes than the tories, but Tories won the council. That indicates that Tories held on with thin majorities to those seats in many cases. This dynamic is repeated across the country. Tories are weak all over the country now, very few safe seats. That is a strong position for Labour to be in, but Rome wasn't built in a day. It's taking time to rebuild trust in the face of strong media propaganda.

Who has control of Wandsworth council, who has the most Wandsworth coucilors? Think you will find it is the Tories, therfore the
Tories 'won' Wandsworth. So following your line of reasoning even though the Tories are weak all over the country & have few safe seats
& Labour are in a strong position they STILL can't win a council the specifically targeted to win. Does not bode well for them in a GE

On the contrary, the BBC analysis showed that the projected vote shares point to a hung parliament with a Labour and SNP coalition ruling, if a GE took place. That's only from the current situation and not counting the effect of the rules that require media to be impartial during election period.

BBC propaganda, surely

Zhivago wrote:

fivepointer wrote:TBF Labour did very well in Wandsworth, upping its vote and increasing its councillors. In fact, generally they performed extremely well in London.
Problem for them is that this was not matched elsewhere. In some places, labour did reasonably well, in others it lost seats and went backwards.
The Tory vote held up remarkably well for a Government of 8 years and in obvious difficulty across a range of issues. The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.

The analysis by experts showed that they suffered in leave areas. Which means that the current Labour strategy of being ambiguous about Brexit is the safest option for them. If they came out stronger for remain, they'd suffer more from this effect.

ends justifying means misses the point of Corbyn surely, but you are dead right on ostensibly backing Leave (which Corbyn does in real life); though, actually, they didn't suffer much in Leave areas which were also previous (to 2015) Labour strongholds- in Plymouth, they took the UKIP voters 'back', for example. tories suffered to Libdem remainers much more than Labour,

Zhivago wrote:

fivepointer wrote:TBF Labour did very well in Wandsworth, upping its vote and increasing its councillors. In fact, generally they performed extremely well in London.
Problem for them is that this was not matched elsewhere. In some places, labour did reasonably well, in others it lost seats and went backwards.
The Tory vote held up remarkably well for a Government of 8 years and in obvious difficulty across a range of issues. The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.

The analysis by experts showed that they suffered in leave areas. Which means that the current Labour strategy of being ambiguous about Brexit is the safest option for them. If they came out stronger for remain, they'd suffer more from this effect.

Being "ambiguous" - i'd call it unprincipled and cowardly - has its advantages but it cannot be sustained indefinitely. Before too long the party will have to decide whether it supports a Tory Brexit, or whether it will challenge it as most of its members and supporters want.
Either way it will likely lose support but fence sitting isnt going to be option for too much longer.

fivepointer wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

fivepointer wrote:TBF Labour did very well in Wandsworth, upping its vote and increasing its councillors. In fact, generally they performed extremely well in London.
Problem for them is that this was not matched elsewhere. In some places, labour did reasonably well, in others it lost seats and went backwards.
The Tory vote held up remarkably well for a Government of 8 years and in obvious difficulty across a range of issues. The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.

The analysis by experts showed that they suffered in leave areas. Which means that the current Labour strategy of being ambiguous about Brexit is the safest option for them. If they came out stronger for remain, they'd suffer more from this effect.

Being "ambiguous" - i'd call it unprincipled and cowardly - has its advantages but it cannot be sustained indefinitely. Before too long the party will have to decide whether it supports a Tory Brexit, or whether it will challenge it as most of its members and supporters want.
Either way it will likely lose support but fence sitting isnt going to be option for too much longer.

Its an option til the Tories inevitably screw it up; by then we are all likely screwed for a while. But it is the obvious route to power; the problem is what is the left over, and what you are in charge of.

Zhivago wrote: not counting the effect of the rules that require media to be impartial during election period.

You’ll to explain this to me, I obviously haven’t read enough.

Anyone know how much the parties spent on these elections? Also have we ever had a set of local elections less about local politics? At least I realised as I stood in the booth I knew nothing about any of the candidates