English mega-local elections, 2021

[Geoffrey Howe]

That's not absolutely awful for Labour. Though the Lib Dem vote will definitely not be as high; I'm not sure how it will translate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When will BBC compute the national equivalent vote share ?

They have done, and it works out at a Tory lead of about 6 points over Labour (maybe not as high as some might have expected given the seat changes in at least some areas)

There's also an element of the narrative causing some confusion here as well. It isn't that Labour have been hit by a massive wave, but that they've either fallen back a bit further or not made progress on previous locals that were not very good. A lot of the results where Labour performed notably poorly in 2019 are clearly a lot better (for what good comparing low turnout locals to a GE will do!), just not better to the extent that Labour would like.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's not absolutely awful for Labour. Though the Lib Dem vote will definitely not be as high; I'm not sure how it will translate.

The Con/Lab votes are always lower in PNS than would be the case in a GE, the LibDem vote higher (these days, when most big LibDem groups are your local NIMBY Alliance and voting for them means nothing for GE intentions, much higher).

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

That's not absolutely awful for Labour. Though the Lib Dem vote will definitely not be as high; I'm not sure how it will translate.

The Con/Lab votes are always lower in PNS than would be the case in a GE, the LibDem vote higher (these days, when most big LibDem groups are your local NIMBY Alliance and voting for them means nothing for GE intentions, much higher).

I don't get how the Georgists are in the same party as the Biggest NIMBY's , it doesn't make any sense.

[Geoffrey Howe]

That's not absolutely awful for Labour. Though the Lib Dem vote will definitely not be as high; I'm not sure how it will translate.

The Con/Lab votes are always lower in PNS than would be the case in a GE, the LibDem vote higher (these days, when most big LibDem groups are your local NIMBY Alliance and voting for them means nothing for GE intentions, much higher).

The gap between Labour and the Tories is smaller, both in absolute and relative terms.

By the way, do you have any Richmond ward results going back (you may have seen my conversation with Alcibiades), or any explanation for Liberals doing better in wealthier parts?

[CumbrianLefty]

That's not absolutely awful for Labour. Though the Lib Dem vote will definitely not be as high; I'm not sure how it will translate.

The Con/Lab votes are always lower in PNS than would be the case in a GE, the LibDem vote higher (these days, when most big LibDem groups are your local NIMBY Alliance and voting for them means nothing for GE intentions, much higher).

I don't get how the Georgists are in the same party as the Biggest NIMBY's , it doesn't make any sense.

New to the LibDems?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

That's not absolutely awful for Labour. Though the Lib Dem vote will definitely not be as high; I'm not sure how it will translate.

The Con/Lab votes are always lower in PNS than would be the case in a GE, the LibDem vote higher (these days, when most big LibDem groups are your local NIMBY Alliance and voting for them means nothing for GE intentions, much higher).

I don't get how the Georgists are in the same party as the Biggest NIMBY's , it doesn't make any sense.

New to the LibDems?

Not really, just never grasped how their electoral alliance worked. Geographically they have Random Rural backwaters, rich outer london suburbs and university campuses while ideologically they have sandal wearing hippies to radical free market capitalists.

[Cassius]

The Lib Dems are Schrödinger’s political party and always have been.

[beesley]

That's not absolutely awful for Labour. Though the Lib Dem vote will definitely not be as high; I'm not sure how it will translate.

The Con/Lab votes are always lower in PNS than would be the case in a GE, the LibDem vote higher (these days, when most big LibDem groups are your local NIMBY Alliance and voting for them means nothing for GE intentions, much higher).

The gap between Labour and the Tories is smaller, both in absolute and relative terms.

By the way, do you have any Richmond ward results going back (you may have seen my conversation with Alcibiades), or any explanation for Liberals doing better in wealthier parts?

I realise you weren't asking me, but if its recent local results you want you should use Andrew Teale's Local Elections Archive Project website - http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ . For ward level results for the Mayoral Races you can use the London Elects website. If you go to the relevant page - e.g. https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/election-results/results-2012 and scroll to 'useful downloads' there's a spreadsheet with ward level data though you'll have to work out the percentages yourself. Obviously where the wards have changed there are no comparable data or notionals.

[Geoffrey Howe]

That's not absolutely awful for Labour. Though the Lib Dem vote will definitely not be as high; I'm not sure how it will translate.

The Con/Lab votes are always lower in PNS than would be the case in a GE, the LibDem vote higher (these days, when most big LibDem groups are your local NIMBY Alliance and voting for them means nothing for GE intentions, much higher).

The gap between Labour and the Tories is smaller, both in absolute and relative terms.

By the way, do you have any Richmond ward results going back (you may have seen my conversation with Alcibiades), or any explanation for Liberals doing better in wealthier parts?

I realise you weren't asking me, but if its recent local results you want you should use Andrew Teale's Local Elections Archive Project website - http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ . For ward level results for the Mayoral Races you can use the London Elects website. If you go to the relevant page - e.g. https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/election-results/results-2012 and scroll to 'useful downloads' there's a spreadsheet with ward level data though you'll have to work out the percentages yourself. Obviously where the wards have changed there are no comparable data or notionals.

The ward results for mayorals are excellent, but I was thinking more about general elections. Local council election should be good; I'll have a look at Mr Teale's site.

[vileplume]

BBC showed a fairly large Green surge in Stroud at the expense of the Conservatives. Any input in what's going on there, besides the normal demographic explanations.

Stroud is quite an 'alternative' town and thus has a lot of Green potential. This combined with the working class town to its south (Cam, Dursley etc.) makes Labour competitive in the Stroud parliamentary seat.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1391415847181246468?s=20

Conservatives are losing big in Oxfordshire, kind of similar to Cambridgeshire in that regard.

Greens surging in Bristol, +9 seats with 20 left to declare. Potential for Greens to end up the plurality winner.

The Lib-Dems are now net positive, their gains in mainly the Remain-y shires have outweighed their losses in other places like Cornwall.

[vileplume]

... and the Tories gain my council from Labour. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with the Labour council but the results were very good for the Conservatives.

Southampton I presume? The results there for Labour were dire. Interestingly (though perhaps not surprisingly given its demographics) one of the 5 wards Labour actually held was Portswood which used to be one of the more Tory wards in the city up until very recently.

[CumbrianLefty]

And they only just lost Swaythling, where they were a poor third not a million years ago.

[vileplume]

There is a Mayor of the West of England? Ridiculous country.

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough is even more ridiculous, Cambridge and Peterborough are over 40 miles away from each other. At least the 'West of England' is basically Greater Bristol (the boundaries of Bristol city really should be expanded but that's a whole other issue) plus Bath and a handful of other towns (Yate etc.). The name 'West of England' is hilariously dire though as it could mean practically anywhere in England west of Oxford.

[beesley]

... and the Tories gain my council from Labour. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with the Labour council but the results were very good for the Conservatives.

Southampton I presume? The results there for Labour were dire. Interestingly (though perhaps not surprisingly given its demographics) one of the 5 wards Labour actually held was Portswood which used to be one of the more Tory wards in the city up until very recently.

Yeah, you're correct. Portswood is probably the most 'urban' of the wards outside the three central wards, so it made sense on trends but it was still an impressive result given the results elsewhere. Swaythling I suspect voted Tory because there were no students voting this time - it was only 20 votes between them and the Labour incumbent (the TUSC vote, incidentally, was greater than the majority). Still a good result relative to the other wards. But the results in the other wards the Tories gained were awful for Labour who I suspect only expected to lose half the wards they did. It must be emphasised there that the unpopularity of the council probably ended any hopes of Labour holding some of the wards like Bitterne (awfully named ward, by the way.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Inclusive of Oxford, even. It used to be that 'West of England Cloth' (which is sort of like a worsted tweed blanket, but made into clothing) was as likely to be made in Oxfordshire as points westwards.

[vileplume]

It won't worry them because they did well in their region (the SW were they almost won the assembly seat) but the Lib Dem performance was pretty bad.

Any thoughts as to why the LDs did so well in the South West constituency? It's obviously a good area for them, but they did worse in the list (where they had a better chance) and poorly in the mayoral (10%). Did the candidate campaign a lot?

For people who know Richmond well: why is the bit north of the river (Twickenham, Teddington) more Lib Dem than south (Kew, Mortlake, Barnes)?

Twickenham and Teddington are somewhat less wealthy. They are very solidly upper middle-class, but not quite as exceptionally affluent as Barnes and surrounds.

This. The Lib Dems do best with comfortably off, educated suburbanites with a globalist worldview. Twickenham is full of these types of people. They do rather less well with the filthy rich, corporate lawyer/banker, laissez faire types that are very numerous in a place like Barnes.

[Geoffrey Howe]

It won't worry them because they did well in their region (the SW were they almost won the assembly seat) but the Lib Dem performance was pretty bad.

Any thoughts as to why the LDs did so well in the South West constituency? It's obviously a good area for them, but they did worse in the list (where they had a better chance) and poorly in the mayoral (10%). Did the candidate campaign a lot?

For people who know Richmond well: why is the bit north of the river (Twickenham, Teddington) more Lib Dem than south (Kew, Mortlake, Barnes)?

Twickenham and Teddington are somewhat less wealthy. They are very solidly upper middle-class, but not quite as exceptionally affluent as Barnes and surrounds.

This. The Lib Dems do best with comfortably off, educated suburbanites with a globalist worldview. Twickenham is full of these types of people. They do rather less well with the filthy rich, corporate lawyer/banker, laissez faire types that are very numerous in a place like Barnes.

Are those types particularly present in Barnes? More so across the river I should say.

[Oryxslayer]

Greens and Labour have tied at 24 seats each in Bristol. Greens gained 13 councilors. Conservatives lost 9 councilors in Oxfordshire and LiD-Dems + Labour have a majority. However it should have been 10:

https://twitter.com/220_d_92_20/status/1391439799521775619?s=20

[Conservatopia]

There is a Mayor of the West of England? Ridiculous country.

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough is even more ridiculous, Cambridge and Peterborough are over 40 miles away from each other. At least the 'West of England' is basically Greater Bristol (the boundaries of Bristol city really should be expanded but that's a whole other issue) plus Bath and a handful of other towns (Yate etc.). The name 'West of England' is hilariously dire though as it could mean practically anywhere in England west of Oxford.

Over my dead body.

[jaymichaud]

What is it with Lib Dems becoming a 'rich people's party' in London?

[Benjamin Frank]

What is it with Lib Dems become a 'rich people's party' in London?

Probably the suburbs as much as if not more so than London.

[Benjamin Frank]

Do, I have this correct: Labour won 11 of the 13 regional mayoralties (I'm not sure if that includes London  or 'Greater London' which is really just the city of London.)?  I  know Labour lost in West Midlands (maybe Liam Byrne will get back in the Shadow Cabinet), I don't know where else.

That certainly suggests the Labour Party is becoming/has become the party of the major population areas while the Conservatives are the party of the smaller cities, towns and rural areas, with, I guess, the suburbs as the swing ridings.  How American (and Canadian.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is it with Lib Dems become a 'rich people's party' in London?

They - and their predecessor parties - have had the ability to do well with People Of Money since more or less the 1960s. It just hasn't always been constant - there's ebb and flow, as is the nature of such things.