Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News17 mins ago
Yes It's Not Good For The Cons......
28 Answers
https:/
....but only a 9 point lead for Labour, not enough to win a GE and this is mid term, still 18 months to go. Things can only get better......for the blues!
....but only a 9 point lead for Labour, not enough to win a GE and this is mid term, still 18 months to go. Things can only get better......for the blues!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Where did TTT say it was a great day for the Tories? The title actually says the opposite!
So far it doesnt look good for either the Tories or Labour. Labour only seem to be taking 1/2 the lost seats the greens (+189) and the Lib Dems (291) are taking the others. Interesting to see the Independents are loosing seats, I would have thought gains would be seen.
So far it doesnt look good for either the Tories or Labour. Labour only seem to be taking 1/2 the lost seats the greens (+189) and the Lib Dems (291) are taking the others. Interesting to see the Independents are loosing seats, I would have thought gains would be seen.
Local elections are pointless.
A Blue changing to Red, Green or Amber or any vice versa means the square root of eff all; local politicians, and councils, no matter what their hue are utterly useless in delivering the services we all pay a vast amount of money for. Without exception they are incompetent.
Your could put a blue rosette on the skankiest piece of cheese where I live, and it would win; there’ll be similar Red councils.
It’s pointless and means jack-siht when it come to a GE.
A Blue changing to Red, Green or Amber or any vice versa means the square root of eff all; local politicians, and councils, no matter what their hue are utterly useless in delivering the services we all pay a vast amount of money for. Without exception they are incompetent.
Your could put a blue rosette on the skankiest piece of cheese where I live, and it would win; there’ll be similar Red councils.
It’s pointless and means jack-siht when it come to a GE.
DD I just posted similar on a other thread. You are so right
MissTerious2Makes me wonder how many people think local elections are important or why Starmer thinks the people are turning into labour supporters. To be honest does anyone think there will be much difference in how their councils are run whoever is elected.
MissTerious2Makes me wonder how many people think local elections are important or why Starmer thinks the people are turning into labour supporters. To be honest does anyone think there will be much difference in how their councils are run whoever is elected.
And what does that mean Gromit?
A previously incompetent Blue council will now be run be an equally incompetent Red council.
Whoopie-doo
It will have zero bearing on the election that actually counts.
By the way, I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss if Labour win the GE (they won’t) given the Tories have effed-up the economy so Labour can’t possibly do any worse, one would hope, but I’m in the fortunate position that I don’t care.
A previously incompetent Blue council will now be run be an equally incompetent Red council.
Whoopie-doo
It will have zero bearing on the election that actually counts.
By the way, I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss if Labour win the GE (they won’t) given the Tories have effed-up the economy so Labour can’t possibly do any worse, one would hope, but I’m in the fortunate position that I don’t care.
It's true that local elections often serve as a useful opportunity to "punish" the incumbent party, and in that sense the implied margins don't always translate into success at General Elections. But, firstly, there's a lot of variation about how much of a punishment a given local election is. Indeed, on more than a few occasions in the last 40-odd years, the governing party has made gains at local elections, including quite recently in 2021. Secondly, even the many local election cycles that have seen losses for the incumbents see wide variation as to the margins: in 2016 and 2018, the Tories lost only a few dozen net seats, while this would mark only the sixth time that there's been a total net loss of more than 1000 seats (I don't have percentage figures to hand, so am only dealing in absolute terms here). Those other five occasions include 1995, which appears to be the record of 2000+ seats lost and ultimately set the tone for the 1997 Election loss.
But politics is a continuing story. I think it's pretty clear that the Tories are in a seriously weak position, and have been for some time, even if they are to some extent making progress away from the dire mess they would have been in at the back end of last year. They can perhaps draw some comfort from the fact that the other heaviest local election losses I can find include 1981, 1991, and 2019, all of which come shortly before thumping General Election wins for the Tories (the final example "1000+ losses" year being 1999, for Labour).
But each of those examples exactly plays into the "continuing story" point: in 1981, Thatcher was in serious trouble, with the SDP/Libs rising fast and her economic policies in question, and then among other things the Falklands War happened; the 2019 local elections were held at a time of Brexit stalemate under Theresa May, but the December elections under Johnson instead saw the message entirely reversed leading to a famous win.
Perhaps the closest parallel to today's election is the 1991 cycle: then, as now, there had been a leadership crisis not long before the locals; then, as now, the new leader was seen as competent if perhaps uninspiring; then, as now, the new leader had to undo a disastrous, or at least a politically misjudged, economic policy shift (Truss/Kwarteng's failed budget v. Thatcher's Community Charge); then, as now, the Labour Party was still trying to clear out the leftist fringes and realign itself as a (left-of-)centre party. And, too, the margins the Tories were playing with in terms of the General Election were such that they could afford to lose quite a large handful of seats and still end up in a majority, and with a year or so between the bad locals and the coming GE.
All of this is to say that a defeat on this scale, with time still to play with, possibly isn't so bad for the Tories in the long run. It's wrong to call locals entirely meaningless -- some people do care about local issues after all, it's not unheard-of -- and they'd be foolish to carry on regardless of the results. But it could be said that the electorate enjoys firing these "warning shots", and then reacting favourably if the Government draws the right lessons from them. In 2019, that was self-evidently about ending the Brexit deadlock. In 2024, it might simply be showing that the Tories don't intend to tear themselves apart at the same time as they're supposed to be running the country.
But politics is a continuing story. I think it's pretty clear that the Tories are in a seriously weak position, and have been for some time, even if they are to some extent making progress away from the dire mess they would have been in at the back end of last year. They can perhaps draw some comfort from the fact that the other heaviest local election losses I can find include 1981, 1991, and 2019, all of which come shortly before thumping General Election wins for the Tories (the final example "1000+ losses" year being 1999, for Labour).
But each of those examples exactly plays into the "continuing story" point: in 1981, Thatcher was in serious trouble, with the SDP/Libs rising fast and her economic policies in question, and then among other things the Falklands War happened; the 2019 local elections were held at a time of Brexit stalemate under Theresa May, but the December elections under Johnson instead saw the message entirely reversed leading to a famous win.
Perhaps the closest parallel to today's election is the 1991 cycle: then, as now, there had been a leadership crisis not long before the locals; then, as now, the new leader was seen as competent if perhaps uninspiring; then, as now, the new leader had to undo a disastrous, or at least a politically misjudged, economic policy shift (Truss/Kwarteng's failed budget v. Thatcher's Community Charge); then, as now, the Labour Party was still trying to clear out the leftist fringes and realign itself as a (left-of-)centre party. And, too, the margins the Tories were playing with in terms of the General Election were such that they could afford to lose quite a large handful of seats and still end up in a majority, and with a year or so between the bad locals and the coming GE.
All of this is to say that a defeat on this scale, with time still to play with, possibly isn't so bad for the Tories in the long run. It's wrong to call locals entirely meaningless -- some people do care about local issues after all, it's not unheard-of -- and they'd be foolish to carry on regardless of the results. But it could be said that the electorate enjoys firing these "warning shots", and then reacting favourably if the Government draws the right lessons from them. In 2019, that was self-evidently about ending the Brexit deadlock. In 2024, it might simply be showing that the Tories don't intend to tear themselves apart at the same time as they're supposed to be running the country.
I suppose to the lecture notes above I should also, briefly, add that you could equally well talk about how the Opposition tends to get overconfident on the back of these wins, and messes up. After 1981, again, the Labour/SDP split worked horribly against both parties by splitting votes in multiple constituencies; had the two worked together more closely (which probably wouldn't have happened because egos), then maybe they'd have ended up winning many more seats, but as it was each party got roughly a quarter of the vote, but Labour won about 209 seats to the SDP/Libs' 23 -- in any case, there was a missed opportunity even in spite of the Falklands War to enjoy some success in the 1983 cycle.
In 1991/2, whether or not it's fair to blame Kinnock for getting cocky near the end ("We're all right!" x3), it certainly seems remarkable that Labour couldn't fully capitalise on the ongoing recession, the recent leadership crisis, and high unemployment rates, and I suspect the idea that they'd already won it *did* play a part in shaping their strategy poorly.
In 2019, the additional point is that Labour also lost seats -- the net gains going to Lib Dems and Greens. Labour, perhaps, should have seen that as a sign that they were in serious trouble themselves; but, certainly, the Lib Dems seemed to massively misjudge things given their subsequent failure in the GE.
Who knows what'll happen in 2024, or whenever the next GE ends up being? But, yes, this is a warning shot, and the Tories have plenty of time to work out how to respond to that.
In 1991/2, whether or not it's fair to blame Kinnock for getting cocky near the end ("We're all right!" x3), it certainly seems remarkable that Labour couldn't fully capitalise on the ongoing recession, the recent leadership crisis, and high unemployment rates, and I suspect the idea that they'd already won it *did* play a part in shaping their strategy poorly.
In 2019, the additional point is that Labour also lost seats -- the net gains going to Lib Dems and Greens. Labour, perhaps, should have seen that as a sign that they were in serious trouble themselves; but, certainly, the Lib Dems seemed to massively misjudge things given their subsequent failure in the GE.
Who knows what'll happen in 2024, or whenever the next GE ends up being? But, yes, this is a warning shot, and the Tories have plenty of time to work out how to respond to that.
DD "they couldn't be more wrong if they tried" - just had to quote this exchange between Sheldon and Stuart:
Stuart: Oooh Sheldon, I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong.
Sheldon: More wrong? Wrong is an absolute state and not subject to gradation.
Stuart: Of course it is. It is a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it is very wrong to say it is a suspension bridge.
Stuart: Oooh Sheldon, I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong.
Sheldon: More wrong? Wrong is an absolute state and not subject to gradation.
Stuart: Of course it is. It is a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it is very wrong to say it is a suspension bridge.
and diane abbott's still an mp, and gobby angela rayner, and the rest of the radicals willing to bring the country to it's knees, there is nothong good about labour 0, full of hard left marxists, pro migrant illegal or otherwise, eco, blm, save the universe loons, they are not united, but have hard left socialist agendas, like spend till were all broke, except them..nice pension and all that.
Latest Posts
Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology63 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News75 mins ago
Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News96 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.