UK local elections, 2 May 2019
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 11:01:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  UK local elections, 2 May 2019
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: UK local elections, 2 May 2019  (Read 6643 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: May 03, 2019, 03:08:46 PM »
« edited: May 03, 2019, 03:14:01 PM by 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.
Logged
rc18
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 498
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: May 03, 2019, 03:20:33 PM »
« Edited: May 03, 2019, 05:13:55 PM by rc18 »

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.

Because the starting point is not equal; sort of like your mid-terms when, say, most seats up for election to the Senate are your own party's.

These elections were mostly in the Tory shires that were won at a high point in the electoral cycle, Cameron winning a majority at a General Election.  So these seats disproportionately contain the low hanging fruit.  Even on a good day the Conservatives would have been down a couple of hundred seats.

It's the opposite case for Labour.  Milliband's share was poor in 2015, barely better than Gordon Brown's. If Labour want to win an election it means pushing out of their bases in London and Wales. So not even being able to take the low hanging fruit back while losing in northern marginals is just as bad a sign for them.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: May 03, 2019, 03:25:52 PM »

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.


This has been almost completely overlooked in the coverage (and this thread). Practically speaking, with fewer Tories in local office there are fewer credible candidates for higher office, lesser resources to contest campaigns or organize grassroots campaigns for/against various measures, and a much higher hill to climb for recruitment the next time around.

The quickest immediate effect will be on public services. Tories, very generally, tend to favour policies that cater to middle and upper class concerns: lowering property taxes, spending on arts/festivals/prettification campaigns, resisting public expenditures - especially on housing - and kowtowing to developers and/or landed interests when they approve of a development. Lib Dems are less deferential to monied and vested interests, though not much more keen on raising taxes. That said, they know they need to work for reelection so they'll push for lots of spending on schools, libraries, roads, parks, etc, and probably get it with Labour support.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: May 03, 2019, 04:49:46 PM »

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.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: May 03, 2019, 04:59:15 PM »

Pretty funny that Labour won Mansfield in this election, of all cycles.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: May 03, 2019, 06:19:39 PM »

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

Mayoralty, not council (where they dropped a few seats)
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: May 03, 2019, 06:48:46 PM »

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.

I see, that makes sense.

But holy sh**t the electoral system for "Metropolitan Boroughs" is terrible. France had something similar but even it got rid of it in 2014.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: May 03, 2019, 08:01:21 PM »
« Edited: May 03, 2019, 08:13:34 PM by 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.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: May 03, 2019, 08:12:23 PM »

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.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: May 04, 2019, 04:06:02 AM »

I share Al's disdain for over-emphasising the very crude measurement which is raw numbers of seats.  But as far as the Tories are concerned, if you go around spinning that you are worried about losing 800 seats and then lose 1300, you have either had a very bad result or are hopeless at expectation management.

Are there more bad Labour councils around than there ought to be?  Bolton, Sunderland, Derby (not Labour any more but still suffering the after-effects), probably now Barnsley...
Logged
adma
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,718
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: May 04, 2019, 05:35:54 AM »

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.

And in Canada, the Alberta NDP vs the federal NDP in 2015.
Logged
vileplume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 540
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: May 04, 2019, 08:28:29 AM »

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.

This is definitely true for two main reasons. Firstly there are an awful lot of people that would vote Lib Dem locally that wouldn't nationally because in many areas the Lib Dems campaign a quasi-independents talking only about local issues and not about national ones (this is probably how they swept Chelmsford Council for example). Secondly general elections have much higher turnout than local elections and the types of people who don't bother to vote in local elections but do in general elections are disproportionately unlikely to vote Lib Dem (or Green for that matter) as most will vote for their government preference i.e. Conservative or Labour.

Still a good set of elections for the Lib Dems albeit from a low base. Arguably they deserved a good year after nearly a decade of dreadful or disappointing results.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: May 04, 2019, 10:31:17 AM »

I share Al's disdain for over-emphasising the very crude measurement which is raw numbers of seats.  But as far as the Tories are concerned, if you go around spinning that you are worried about losing 800 seats and then lose 1300, you have either had a very bad result or are hopeless at expectation management.

Are there more bad Labour councils around than there ought to be?  Bolton, Sunderland, Derby (not Labour any more but still suffering the after-effects), probably now Barnsley...

Hartlepool as well.

Surprised you didn't mention Sheffield tbh - the trees, THE TREES!!
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: May 05, 2019, 01:12:21 PM »

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.

The council result here was a surprise for sure, but a not unpleasant one Wink
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.234 seconds with 12 queries.