UK Local Elections

[Agatha]

My ward, which has been solid Labour since Adam was a lad, has gone to the Tories in an absolute landslide. In 2013 Labour had 39% of the vote, Tories 34% with the rest shared out between UKIP, LibDem and an independent. This time round the Tories polled 57% against Labour's 34%. If this is played out across the county, the council will be a CON gain from LAB.

This does not bode well for our Labour MP.

 

[angrysoba]

The specific words, no - that was a bit of hyperbole - but there have been many claims that opposition to Corbyn isn't a result of the man or his policies but rather a media smear campaign.

I think there is something of a media smear campaign against Corbyn, or rather a few different media outlets have been running their smear campaigns against him. And such media campaigns may well have some effect.

However, even without them, I think people pretty much have made up their mind that Corbyn is an ineffectual dithering drip. The media generally go after easy prey, just as when they back candidates they tend to do so because those candidates are already popular. They tend to know which way the wind is blowing and follow it, in my opinion, rather than lead a charge which the general population follows after like braindead zombies.

Thus when the Sun claims, "It's the Sun Wot Won It!" it's because they hope for influence from the candidate who was a dead cert to win and joined their campaign at the last stage.*

ETA: * Having gone back and looked at that headline, I realize I misremembered as I presumed it had followed Tony Blair's win, which The Sun backed but only after having switched to Labour in the final stages.

 

[angrysoba]

My ward, which has been solid Labour since Adam was a lad, has gone to the Tories in an absolute landslide. In 2013 Labour had 39% of the vote, Tories 34% with the rest shared out between UKIP, LibDem and an independent. This time round the Tories polled 57% against Labour's 34%. If this is played out across the county, the council will be a CON gain from LAB.

This does not bode well for our Labour MP.

If the Tories win we'll all end up disenfranchised.

 

[Agatha]

TM will pry my vote only from my cold dead hands. But then given I'm one of those benefit-scrounging disabled people who she and her government are trying to starve to death, she'll probably succeed.

 

[Agatha]

I imagine that Glasgow City Chambers resemble the Fall of Siagon, with senior Labour members waiting on the roof for helicopters.

The BBC just now: "Labour has lost overall control of Glasgow as the first results are declared in the Scottish council elections.

The SNP is hoping to replace Labour as the biggest party in Scotland's largest city, where Labour has held power since 1980.

Labour has lost early seats in the city, meaning it cannot now win another majority."

I hope you had a fiver on the result you predicted, Architect!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The specific words, no - that was a bit of hyperbole - but there have been many claims that opposition to Corbyn isn't a result of the man or his policies but rather a media smear campaign.

Well if it's a result of the man then the argument must go that he is a worse person than Theresa May. Do you believe that?

If it's a result of his policies then the argument must go that he promotes policies that are worse than the Tories. Do you believe that?

People have lost all perspective of the man who seems to be a fairly mediocre politician putting forward policies that on the whole are probably better for the average person than Those of the Tories.

The media smear campaign is what in my opinion has clouded the judgement of people in doing that simple calculus.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Ours, no, not really. He didn't really campaign but independent candidates generally do pretty well. A friend ran as an independent and came a close second to the incumbent Tory.

The reason I asked is that you dismissed other candidates because they couldn't win so it seemed either that your independent had a chance of winning or something had gone askew.

 

[The Don]

The reason I asked is that you dismissed other candidates because they couldn't win so it seemed either that your independent had a chance of winning or something had gone askew.

From my perspective, local elections are very different to general elections in any case not least because the scope of powers for a county council is much narrower.

In a local election I'm more prepared to vote for an independent or a marginal party.

 

[fagin]

And in a rather bizarre fashion, the Lib Dems win a seat by a straw.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-39814634?SThisFB

"The battle for control of a council ended with the drawing of straws after a dead heat in the crucial final ward."

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Well if it's a result of the man then the argument must go that he is a worse person than Theresa May. Do you believe that?

If it's a result of his policies then the argument must go that he promotes policies that are worse than the Tories. Do you believe that?

People have lost all perspective of the man who seems to be a fairly mediocre politician putting forward policies that on the whole are probably better for the average person than Those of the Tories.

The media smear campaign is what in my opinion has clouded the judgement of people in doing that simple calculus.

Interestingly, people would rather be potentially screwed by a competent (if detestable) politician then by a useless doofus... At least that's my experience in talking to people anyway.

Corbyn is just not 'leadership' material in most people's eyes.

 

[The Don]

Well if it's a result of the man then the argument must go that he is a worse person than Theresa May. Do you believe that?

Depends on what you mean by "worse person". IMO he's certainly (even) worse equipped to lead a political party. For her myriad flaws, Theresa May seems to have bludgeoned the majority of her parliamentary party into toeing the party line, she performs adequately in parliament and she seems to lead the party generally in concert with party policy.

OTOH Corbyn seems incapable of managing his parliamentary party, his performance in parliament is embarrassing, especially at PMQ where nary a blow is landed and he presents his own views as if they were party policy, even when the run counter.

I'm not equipped to judge whether he is a more or less moral person, whether he is a more or less honest person, whether he has greater or less intellectual capacity because I don't know either of them well enough.

If it's a result of his policies then the argument must go that he promotes policies that are worse than the Tories. Do you believe that?

False dichotomy.

The current set of Labour Party policies will be less damaging than the Conservative ones IMO (though as both are pro-Brexit they are very damaging indeed in respect to the single most important thing since the second world war) but if Corbyn and his cronies are allowed free rein to set party policy, it might not take long until they are worse.

If Corbyn is determined to drag the UK back to the 1970s with all the industrial unrest, class strife and everything else that entails - which seems to reflect his personal views - then at that stage Labour cold be even more damaging than the Tories because although they may attempt to do their best for the less advantaged, they'll lack the means to do it.

People have lost all perspective of the man who seems to be a fairly mediocre politician putting forward policies that on the whole are probably better for the average person than Those of the Tories.

He's also a man dragging his party in what I think is completely the wrong direction and someone who is supremely unqualified to be Prime Minister.

Given a hypothetical straight choice between Corbyn and May in a US-style Presidential Election and being forced at gunpoint to vote, I might very well go against every political instinct and vote for May because I think he would be that disasterous as Prime Minister (though I would vote Labour or Lib Dem in a hypothetical Senate or House race).

The media smear campaign is what in my opinion has clouded the judgement of people in doing that simple calculus.

I disagree with your opinion. I think Corbyn's problems are of his own making.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Depends on what you mean by "worse person". IMO he's certainly (even) worse equipped to lead a political party. For her myriad flaws, Theresa May seems to have bludgeoned the majority of her parliamentary party into toeing the party line, she performs adequately in parliament and she seems to lead the party generally in concert with party policy.

OTOH Corbyn seems incapable of managing his parliamentary party, his performance in parliament is embarrassing, especially at PMQ where nary a blow is landed and he presents his own views as if they were party policy, even when the run counter.

I'm not equipped to judge whether he is a more or less moral person, whether he is a more or less honest person, whether he has greater or less intellectual capacity because I don't know either of them well enough.



False dichotomy.

The current set of Labour Party policies will be less damaging than the Conservative ones IMO (though as both are pro-Brexit they are very damaging indeed in respect to the single most important thing since the second world war) but if Corbyn and his cronies are allowed free rein to set party policy, it might not take long until they are worse.

If Corbyn is determined to drag the UK back to the 1970s with all the industrial unrest, class strife and everything else that entails - which seems to reflect his personal views - then at that stage Labour cold be even more damaging than the Tories because although they may attempt to do their best for the less advantaged, they'll lack the means to do it.



He's also a man dragging his party in what I think is completely the wrong direction and someone who is supremely unqualified to be Prime Minister.

Given a hypothetical straight choice between Corbyn and May in a US-style Presidential Election and being forced at gunpoint to vote, I might very well go against every political instinct and vote for May because I think he would be that disasterous as Prime Minister (though I would vote Labour or Lib Dem in a hypothetical Senate or House race).



I disagree with your opinion. I think Corbyn's problems are of his own making.

Well at least in there you seem honest enough to say that you would rather May PM than Corbyn but I struggle to comprehend how you have arrived at

that without completely ignoring the flaws of May (such as her being a hard right nutbag) while grossly exaggerating Corbyns.

There is no false dichotomy here though. That's the choice you have. Labour policies or Tory policies. And personally I'd choose a vaguely incompetent well meaning PM over an effective hard right nut bag every day of the week.

Right now I'd possibly take ukip over the Tories at least some of their policies were vaguely positive towards the NHS and such like.

The choice is not between Corbyn and some theoretical better leader of the Labour Party right now. That fight was lost.

 

[The Don]

Well at least in there you seem honest enough to say that you would rather May PM than Corbyn but I struggle to comprehend how you have arrived at

That's not what I said at all. I said that if I was voting for a President in a US style election, that there were only two candidates and that I was forced at gunpoint to vote - a set of circumstances that simply will not happen - then I might vote for May.

that without completely ignoring the flaws of May (such as her being a hard right nutbag) while grossly exaggerating Corbyns.

I'm not ignoring her flaws at all, it's just that specifically in a Presidential role, and with the assumed checks and balances of the US system then may would be less of a disaster as head of state than Corbyn would.

There is no false dichotomy here though. That's the choice you have. Labour policies or Tory policies. And personally I'd choose a vaguely incompetent well meaning PM over an effective hard right nut bag every day of the week.

Of course it's a false dichotomy. Come the general election I will have a choice of several candidates so I will not be forced to choose between Tory and Labour.

Right now I'd possibly take ukip over the Tories at least some of their policies were vaguely positive towards the NHS and such like.

If you think that, I'd advise you to examine UKIP's proposals in detail.

The choice is not between Corbyn and some theoretical better leader of the Labour Party right now. That fight was lost.

You're right, that fight was lost which is why I will not be voting Labour in the next election.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's not what I said at all. I said that if I was voting for a President in a US style election, that there were only two candidates and that I was forced at gunpoint to vote - a set of circumstances that simply will not happen - then I might vote for May.



I'm not ignoring her flaws at all, it's just that specifically in a Presidential role, and with the assumed checks and balances of the US system then may would be less of a disaster as head of state than Corbyn would.



Of course it's a false dichotomy. Come the general election I will have a choice of several candidates so I will not be forced to choose between Tory and Labour.



If you think that, I'd advise you to examine UKIP's proposals in detail.



You're right, that fight was lost which is why I will not be voting Labour in the next election.

I can't follow your logic at all.

Either surely you vote for the MP you think will do the best job in which case Corbyn shouldn't come into it or you vote for whichever party you think has the best policies in which case Corbyn shouldn't come into it or you vote for who you think will make the best pm in which case you have a straight battle between May and Corbyn. Or as much of a battle as you get any way.

It feels like you are potentially cutting off your nose to spite your face somewhat if you are refusing to vote labour because of Corbyn but increasing the likelihood of a Tory win.

Of course you might be in a safe seat where your vote makes no odds anyway but if not then surely you hold your nose and vote labour in England and wales unless you are tactically voting to oust the tories?

 

[MikeG]

.......The current set of Labour Party policies will be less damaging than the Conservative ones IMO (though as both are pro-Brexit they are very damaging indeed in respect to the single most important thing since the second world war) but if Corbyn and his cronies are allowed free rein to set party policy, it might not take long until they are worse.

If Corbyn is determined to drag the UK back to the 1970s with all the industrial unrest, class strife and everything else that entails - which seems to reflect his personal views - then at that stage Labour cold be even more damaging than the Tories because although they may attempt to do their best for the less advantaged, they'll lack the means to do it..........

I don't agree that Labour policies would be less damaging than Conservative. The fundamental difference between the parties is on running the economy, and Corbyn's Labour is proposing old fashioned tax-and-spend, despite the ruinous consequences every other time it has been tried. Destroying the economy is much worse for every person in the country, including those on benefits and low wages, than keeping the the purse strings tight and keeping the economy on an even keel. Bar defense, all the other Labour policies are unimportant in comparison, and however attractive some of them may be to some people, playing fast and loose with the economy over-rides all other considerations. Corbyn can bang on about the NHS as much as he likes, but crippling the country financially is no way of keeping the NHS in good order.

 

[Mycroft]

... the local Con had pictures of himself at many different spots around the village, smiling inanely wearing the same clothes in each, so he obviously decided to pretend he rubs shoulders with the rabble, at least for a day...

Or just one set of clothes he feels comfortable being photographed in. Vote for him so he can afford some nicer clothes.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Rolfe]

It's actually quite funny watching the BBC spin the SNP's win in the council elections into a defeat. To build on the way they spun the SNP's win in the 2012 council elections into a defeat.

In 2012 they went with, in effect, "the SNP didn't do quite as well as we bigged them up as going to do, so they were defeated." Even though they won. This was achieved so far as Glasgow was concerned by reporting a bunch of Labour holds as Labour gains. (About a month before the election a bunch of sitting Labour councillors were deselected as party candidates and not allowed to defend their seats. In protest they resigned the Labour whip. When Labour duly won these seats again with their new candidates the BBC trumpeted them as "Labour gains".)

This time it got even more surreal. There have been some boundary changes since 2012, and actually a whole four seats more in Scotland as a whole. In 2012 there were 1223 seats and there are now 1227. Not a big change you might think. But the BBC has used this to put a fairly amazing spin on the results.

In 2012 the SNP won 425 seats. (Which was a stunningly good performance, the first time the party had won both the most votes and the most seats in a Scottish council election, but as I said was spun as a defeat on the basis of "we told our viewers the party was expected to do better than that.) In 2017 the SNP won 431 seats. Most people thought this was an increase of six seats. (Remember there were only four more seats altogether in the country.)

Not the BBC, who have been headlining the SNP's loss of seats compared to 2012. How? Well, because of the boundary changes they decided to invent a whole new election result for 2012, one that didn't actually happen. They crunched some numbers (and nobody has any details of how this was done, with BBC presenters on Twitter admitting the figures were just handed to them) and decided that the SNP had "notionally" won 438 seats in 2012.

This has led to much Twitter hilarity paying tribute to the 13 SNP councillors from Brigadoon who lost their seats this week. "They perished in the Bowling Green massacre" said one wag. "First real election for the Scotish Notional Party and you mock them for losing all their councillors" complained another. (I thought that was rather good!)

What has actually happened is that the SNP has gained more seats and a larger vote share than five years ago. It has also taken control of Glasgow City Council after failing to secure that prize last time. At the same time the second and third ranked parties have switched places. The Tories made out they were fighting the SNP but what they were actually doing was fighting Labour (for the unionist vote). In that sense, the Tories won something. They came from third to second place and substantially increased their representation at the expense of Labour. Bully for them. They're still training a pretty distant second though

But the way this is being spun naive observers would think the Tories actually won the election. One guest on a BBC News TV panel actually thought that and said "and the SNP failed to win Glasgow. The Conservatives have won Glasgow. Who would have believed that?" That was what she had taken from the media coverage. Actually the Tories got 8 councillors in Glasgow. The SNP got 39.

One headline last night was "Sturgeon claims victory despite Tory surge". Well, yes, the SNP got 431 councillors compared to 276 for the Tories" so most people would probably call that a victory, no? Another this morning was "Nationalists left reeling after backlash over 2nd referendum". Another, in a once-respectable broadsheet, was "Tory surge sinks case for independence poll!" Remember, the SNP actually did better than five years ago, the Tory "surge" was achieved by taking seats from the Labour party.

It was left to, wait for it, the Telegraph, to publish a graphic showing what actually happened.

https://twitter.com/StewartMcDonald/status/860613820309549058

It's fun to laugh at the spin, but actually it's not really funny when the media misleads the public to quite this extent.

 

[Blue Bubble]

That is indeed truly shocking

 

[angrysoba]

Yeah, this chart on the BBC says SNP 431 and then beside that -7.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39827097

What's weird is that when I looked at this earlier, I saw the other parties had either a + or a - beside the number of seats, and in the SNP row it only had a 6, but no + or -. I didn't know why. This does seem very odd.

 

[angrysoba]

I see the Cornish nationalists won 4 times the number of UKIP seats.