UK local elections, 2 May 2019

[DaWN]

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.

I'm sure our friends on Twitter will find a way of spinning this as a Great Socialist Triumph.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[cp]

It seems that all things equal when all the counting is done the the number of Councillors CON will have won would be roughly the same as the number of Councillors the LAB and LIB put together.  Quiet and accomplishment in its 9th year in power and after a catastrophic last few months.  I guess UKIP not running in a bunch of seats where they did run in 2015 must have helped.  

Yeah, that's not how this works.

The councils up for election yesterday are only a portion of the local governments in the UK. London, Scotland, Wales, and large swaths of mostly metropolitan England aren't voting today. Those places that are voting are disproportionately Tory leaning, i.e. rural, older, whiter, etc.

The situation is analogous to having an entire class of US Senate seats consist of 75% heavily GOP states (Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, etc.). The Tories only managing to win half of the races in the most favourable terrain they could hope for is, in reality, a dismal showing.

I see.  If these elections are on a 4 year cycle would not a better apples-to-apples comparison be 1991 when there was a long tenured CON government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_United_Kingdom_local_elections

There the LAB were clearly head of CON

So I would still argue these results look very good in 2019 for the CON in historical perspective  

As Gary J alluded to, the structure of English local government has changed substantially over the past few decades, so an apples to apples comparison of a local election from that long ago with today is very limited in how much it can reveal. There were no municipal mayoralties back in 1991, no unitary authorities, and something like twice as many councils/councillors, and a much less fractured party system.

I would agree with the argument that the Labour Party isn't having a very good night, though that's has little to do with the effectiveness or appeal of the Tories.

Nevertheless, if you did want to make direct comparisons with the past, keep this in mind: the Tories have not lost this many local councils or gotten this low a share of the vote since 1995, which was the prelude to their 1997 catastrophic loss to Labour. Concurrently, the Lib Dems have not had as impressive a night since 1987, when they were still the SDP-Liberal Alliance Party. I would also note that the Tories haven't won a single one of the 'big ticket' mayoral contests.

There's no way around it: this is a bad, bad, bad day for the Tories.  

[rc18]

As Gary J alluded to, the structure of English local government has changed substantially over the past few decades, so an apples to apples comparison of a local election from that long ago with today is very limited in how much it can reveal. There were no municipal mayoralties back in 1991, no unitary authorities, and something like twice as many councils/counsillors, and a much less fractured party system.

I would agree with the argument that the Labour Party isn't having a very good night, though that's has little to do with the effectiveness or appeal of the Tories.

Nevertheless, if you did want to make direct comparisons with the past, keep this in mind: the Tories have not lost this many local councils or gotten this low a share of the vote since 1995, which was the prelude to their 1997 catastrophic loss to Labour. Concurrently, the Lib Dems have not had as impressive a night since 1987, when they were still the SDP-Liberal Alliance Party. I would also note that the Tories haven't won a single one of the 'big ticket' mayoral contests.

There's no way around it: this is a bad, bad, bad day for the Tories.  

In 1995 Cons were on 25% NEV and Tony Blair’s Labour was on 47%, so they were losing all these seats to Labour, that’s why there was a landslide 2 years later. Now it’s looking like Con 29% to Corbyn’s Labour on 28%. That’s not even a 1 on the Richter scale, let alone indicative of Labour sweeping to power. So yes the Tories aren’t doing great, but that doesn’t mean much if Labour are going backwards too.

[parochial boy]

Some of the places the Greens are winning seats in... definitely overturns some stereotypes, let's put it that way.

[Sir Tiki]

https://twitter.com/bbcelection/status/1124332593133043712

[Bacon King]

Correct me if I'm wrong but outside of a few local government reorganizations here and there, all the council seats up yesterday are the same cohort that was last elected during the general election in 2015, no?

If so couldn't most of the Lib Dem surge be categorized as a reversion to the mean from their painfully terrible 2015 outcome? I'm sure the seats they're gaining now are mostly different from the seats they lost back then, but some quick math tells me that within this cohort they only won about 80 seats more than they held on the day before the Cleggtastrophe

[Bacon King]

Now it’s looking like Con 29% to Corbyn’s Labour on 28%.

So this means Tories are down 6 points from 2015 while Labor are down 1, assuming I have any idea what I'm talking about

[DaWN]

Correct me if I'm wrong but outside of a few local government reorganizations here and there, all the council seats up yesterday are the same cohort that was last elected during the general election in 2015, no?

If so couldn't most of the Lib Dem surge be categorized as a reversion to the mean from their painfully terrible 2015 outcome? I'm sure the seats they're gaining now are mostly different from the seats they lost back then, but some quick math tells me that within this cohort they only won about 80 seats more than they held on the day before the Cleggtastrophe

Well, yes, but it's important to note that since 2015 their advance has been pretty slow and limited. It may be a reversion to the pre-2015 mean but it's the first time since 2015 that such a reversion has been all that evident.

[jaichind]

What is interesting about the Green surge is that I though the whole point of having Corbyn as leader of LAB is to stop LAB votes from going to parties like the Greens.   At least in this election that is not the case.

[Bacon King]

Ultimately my take on this election as a poorly-informed American is this:

1. Liberal Democrats regaining support from their 2015 defeat
2. Tories and Labour are both incredibly unpopular so protest parties across the board did very well
3. As the traditional "protest vote party" the Lib Dems benefited massively from the unpopularity of the big two
4. The Lib Dems may have actually underperformed compared to historical norms because a lot of the anti-everything protest vote they traditionally would have won was instead directed towards the Greens and others who were better in some places at finding names to put on the ballots
5. This was a low turnout affair and most elections were actually determined by local concerns more than anything; anyone trying to produce a narrative about Brexit in either direction here is just cherrypicking evidence to match what they already decided to believe.

[Tintrlvr]

What is interesting about the Green surge is that I though the whole point of having Corbyn as leader of LAB is to stop LAB votes from going to parties like the Greens.   At least in this election that is not the case.

The Greens are not winning (many) seats from Labour. They're winning local-votes-for-local-people seats in small towns surrounding by ultra-Tory countryside. Those are places that for the most part probably would have been voting Lib Dem or independent localist candidates in local elections in the 80s and 90s through the early 2000s but had switched back to the Tories even before the Coalition, generally places that are too well-off and disconnected from unions to have ever voted for the Labour Party but are nonetheless culturally "liberal" and concerned about the environment.

Also, local environmental issues (we're talking "opposition to a new landfill" types of issues) can give the Greens an in with voters who don't care that much about environmental issues on a macro level but will vote for a Green councillor on the basis of some local controversy.

[vileplume]

Ultimately my take on this election as a poorly-informed American is this:

1. Liberal Democrats regaining support from their 2015 defeat
2. Tories and Labour are both incredibly unpopular so protest parties across the board did very well
3. As the traditional "protest vote party" the Lib Dems benefited massively from the unpopularity of the big two
4. The Lib Dems may have actually underperformed compared to historical norms because a lot of the anti-everything protest vote they traditionally would have won was instead directed towards the Greens and others who were better in some places at finding names to put on the ballots
5. This was a low turnout affair and most elections were actually determined by local concerns more than anything; anyone trying to produce a narrative about Brexit in either direction here is just cherrypicking evidence to match what they already decided to believe.

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.

Of course national issues play in too but every local area has its own issues which you'll often find animate the locals far more than Brexit does. Due to these seats being last contested at the same time as the 2015 General Election the Tories (and to a lesser extent Labour) were massively over extended in their stronger areas due to the Lib Dem wipe out (and the fact that general election turnout damages small parties as a rule). This election can therefore be seen as a reversion to the mean and the ending of the complete dominance of one party in large swathes local government (which isn't healthy whomever's in charge).

[cp]

I think that's a very astute take. I'd add to that, a lot of the 'Independent' gains is coming in the form of Residents Associations or other parties. For those not familiar, these sorts of things are quite common, especially in nearly-monolithic-Tory parts of the country. They're not ideological, though if you tried to pin down the individual members they'd probably all fit comfortably into the Tory party (there are a few analogues on the Labour side up north, too, whose members are basically erstwhile Labourites).

Putting my political history hat on, elections where Lib Dems, RA parties, and the Greens do well tend to come when a Tory coalition is coming to pieces, and it tends to culminate in a turfing of the Tories from Westminster government in fairly short order.

[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.

[parochial boy]

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?

Or is it more that, a council is like a football referee, the better you are the less people even notice you're there.

[DaWN]

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?

Or is it more that, a council is like a football referee, the better you are the less people even notice you're there.

Yes, most (if not all) are unpopular to varying degrees. But to get voted out it has to be really unpopular unless its a swing area. Even then the underlying partisanship of an area can overcome unpopularity fairly easily. My local council is beyond abysmal but they were re-elected very comfortably last year because this is a Labour area, the Tories and Lib Dems are dirt locally and the Greens only did well in the areas they were organised in.

[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.

[DL]

The Tories have now lost a net 1,323 seats with a few more councils to report. This is even worse than the 1,000 losses that they were spinning that they expected to suffer.

[YL]

Sheffield.  Winning party and lead.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Some more bad Tory results have come in from Dorset, which had inaugural elections for its two new unitaries (one urban council for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole; and a rural council for the rump county). Every single one of the predecessor councils, iirc (aside from the resort town of Weymouth and Portland, which had one of those odd rainbow coalitions) were Tory bastions for the entire Cameron era (e.g. Bournemouth borough council had an opposition of three people, none of which were Labour or LibDem). BCP Tories have now lost their majority, and they had their numbers cut badly in Dorset proper.

Dorset

Tory 43
LD 29
Ind 4
Green 4
Lab 2

Bournemouth etc

Tory 36
Lib 15
Ind 11
Poole People 7
Lab 3
Green 2
UKIP 1

Notably many of the independents are ex-Tories from old people bastion Christchurch (you may be familiar with their MP, the Rt Honourable Christopher "What's wrong with upskirting?" Chump), who didn't fancy being merged in with their neighbours. LD's swept Poole with the assistance of the Pool people. Mediocre reslts for Labour though, who really should be doing better in Bournemouth proper.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[DaWN]

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 baseline was 2015 which was a pretty great year for the Tories and a pretty bad one for Labour. The Tories had much further back to fall but Labour not making significant gains given how much advancing they could have done is pathetic.

It also fits the general pattern of Labour underperforming drastically against a catastrophically unpopular government. To not be cleaning up against these jokers is just beyond pathetic.

[Bacon King]

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.

It appears that the press decided on the "BOTH PARTIES LOSE" narrative very early on, back when the results were looking like this

[cp]

There's some truth to that, though the 2017 general election suggests there's actually an inverse relationship to Tory confidence and Corbyn performance, rather than a consistent pattern of Corbyn underperformance.

Much as I'm keen on Corbyn getting into office, I can't help but think these locals are a sign that he'll never achieve more than a slim majority. He's just too much of a turn off to too many people, far more so than Labour's/Corbyn's Brexit policy.

That said, personally unpopular leaders have managed to win majorities before (Harper 2011, Trump 2016, May 2017 barely)