UK local elections, 2 May 2019

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thank you, I would have relied on random hearsay if I didn't know this.

A quick scan of local election threads past here would suggest that rather a lot of people do.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Early indications show good results for minor and fringe parties and low turnouts. How surprising. Early indications also show pretty lousy numbers for Labour in Sunderland, which may not be indicative (the administration there is widely loathed, if also, paradoxically, bomb-proof) but will probably be treated as such because most places don't count so fast.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I mean it's probably important not to forget that Labour is very unpopular at the moment as well. Both main parties are, and their leaders especially. And this has a big effect on how motivated supporters are to bother with local elections. Meanwhile if you're generally cranky, you have extra incentive to vote this year. Guess a lot of absolute jokers will wake up tomorrow with 'Cllr' in front of their name...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Independents gained a lot.  I wonder how many of them are UKIP splinter parties or ex-UKIP members running to avoid the UKIP label but still de facto UKIP.

Hardly any; they're mostly just people running on 'clean up the dog sh!t' and 'this town is IGNORED by the council' tickets. But, basically, smaller parties and independents are doing well everywhere because the big two are hated right now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could someone familiar with Greater Manchester explain why Trafford is trending Labour? At this rate, Graham Brady's seat could be marginal in a decade or so...

Unpopular and very right-wing Conservative administration with a very suburban focus that overstayed its welcome.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ftr, these are basically catastrophic results for both major parties. They can both point to a few bright spots if they're desperate enough, but mostly these just relate to the fact that these seats were last fought on a General Election day. It seems fairly clear that a lot of normally reliable major party voters did not turn out, while all of the angry, cranky types did. Think a lot of administrations got caught napping.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All of the Takes about North/South and Brexit factors on Labour performance and yet... Labour had high hopes of winning a majority in Brighton & Hove, very realistic ones. Nailed on favourites. Results are coming through right now and... it is not going well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some good news for Labour: they have won the Mansfield mayoral election by two votes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would add that these results are a lot more 'local' than they are being portrayed and this goes some way to explain wildly varying results in areas with similar demographic make ups. For example the Labour adminstration in Bolton was extremely unpopular, the labour administration in the Wirral was riven by factional splits, the Tory administration in Tunbridge Wells is apparently even unpopular with their own activists primarily due to the fact they want build over the town's most historic park.

Quite so. One of the most consistent patterns on display has been bad results for incumbent local authorities - and quite a few council leaders have lost their seats directly. Of course the key thing here is that unpopular local administrations are more likely to get their electoral comeuppance when/if their party is also unpopular nationally, because the latter determines how bothered the core vote of the various parties are to actually turn out. What's just happened is that the core votes of both major parties have turned out at lower than normal levels, while Mr Grumpy type voters have turned out with enthusiasm. The defeats - or at least the chastening in some cases - of so many dreadful administrations is no bad thing anyway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just out of curiosity, is there such a thing as a "popular" local council? I thought that complaining about the council was basically a hard-wired part of the British nationaly psyche?

There councils that have reputations for (relative) administrative efficiency, sure. Manchester would be the best known example, but also (say) Stevenage.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So the Tories lost 1300 seats and Labour lost 80, but this is being spun as equally bad for both parties? I get that expectations matter, but this is ridiculous.

The general angle seems to be that they were bad for both but worse for the former, but anyway:

1. Most of the Labour seats up for election were in 'Metropolitan Boroughs' or larger urban unitary authorities. In both cases the wards are rather large and in the case of the former (some of the latter as well) they elect by thirds: so each ward has three councillors and one seat in the ward comes up for election each active year of the electoral cycle.

2. Conversely, almost all of the Conservative seats up for re-election were in Districts. Most of these elect all of their councillors in one go and in all cases the wards are much, much smaller. Typically more seats will be up for re-election in a small district than in a substantial urban council such as Manchester.

3. These seats were last contested on the same day as the 2015 General Election. This had the effect of imposing high turnout patterns (which are fairly uniform and benefit mostly major parties) onto what is usually (and was this time) a low turnout set of elections. In particular it meant that the Conservative were defending a much higher baseline in the Districts than would normally have been the case.

4. The usual rule is that government parties lose seats at midterm polls (well we've definitely seen that), and that the principle opposition party takes the lions share of these. Even if they don't manage that, they'll usually manage decent gains, even if national polling isn't fantastic.

5. And, ultimately, what matters more than the aggregate total of seats (a stupid media obsession, frankly) is control of local authorities. This does not present a pretty picture for either major party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, though in areas with the two-tier system the Counties are the tier with the most power. Though that raises some interesting issues; since the LibDem meltdown at the 2011 locals, the relationship between counties and districts has been more harmonious than was traditionally the case. Now that the LibDems are back as a serious force in the districts, with majority control of some and a good shot at forming part of coalitions in others, this will presumably change. Similarly, the Labour authorities who have had nothing much to worry about in their core wards since the same set of elections will have to be more careful; honestly most of Labour's actual losses were probably down to pure complacency.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Pretty funny that Labour won Mansfield in this election, of all cycles.

Mayoralty, not council (where they dropped a few seats)

Still, fantastic for #banter given that it was by two votes (!!) and o/c with the third choice candidate. Mind you, your own district didn't do so badly on the #banter front either.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One thing that is rather important to add: there's always a tendency to project forwards from local elections, to try to read them as predictive. This was an error in the past and is an even bigger one now. The Conservatives performed poorly. Does this mean they will lose re-election at the next GE, whenever it shall be? No. Labour performed poorly in a different sense. Does this mean they will fail, once more, to break through and win a GE? No. The LibDems had their first good local election night since their post-2010 electoral collapse. Does this mean that they will recover just as strongly in a GE? No. Will even the patterns on display in the results, both in specific councils and aggregated nationally, necessarily be reflected at the next GE? No. The results tell us about today, not tomorrow.