A different look at the 2014 local election results

[Flex Your Head]

Just before we start sifting through the Euro election results tonight, I thought this article made some pertinent observations.

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/local-election-results-2014-aav.html?m=1

Ugly design, but good reading.

 

[GreersElbow]

Labour did badly, let's not sugar coat their result. They gained a lot because of the split in the right-wing vote, if I remember likely their share of the national vote never dramatically increased. Given the money they've spent to bring this campaign media guru, they've really not done as well as people think they have done. In fact, I would consider it a bit of a disaster for them. 1 year before the GE and they're not increasing their national share of the vote? I think Labour should be worried. Sunderland for example, Labour won control, but they saw a decrease in the number voting for them, UKIP saw a 24% increase in the vote.

The comments about the Greens are spot on, the real earthquake came from those voting Green who saw the largest increase in the share of the national vote.

EDIT: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/england-council-election-results Here's the share of the national vote. Lab: 31% Cons 29%

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

UKIP now have 8 councillors on NELC (Grimsby , Cleethorpes actually and surrounding villages). One reason they didn't make inroads all across London is they didn't contest every single ward of each respective council and openly admitted volunteers and canvassers were too thinly spread on the ground. LibDems of a leftish persuasion now have an alternate party they can switch their votes to - the Greens.

 

[Gwylan]

Labour did badly, let's not sugar coat their result ...Given the money they've spent to bring this campaign media guru, they've really not done as well as people think they have done.

I'm no Labour voter but that's not really accurate. Axelrod only came over this week and had no influence in this campaign. He's been signed up for the general election.

And it's some political spin to say that Labour did badly. The party gained more than 300 seats, maybe they could (or should) have done better but it's not really true to say they did badly

 

[Acker79]

Interesting. I know on Friday morning I was confused by some of the coverage (someone on here copied someone's tweet that Labour had a terrible night in one council where they retained control, but now had a serious opposition - how can retaining control be terrible?)

 

[GreersElbow]

And it's some political spin to say that Labour did badly. The party gained more than 300 seats, maybe they could (or should) have done better but it's not really true to say they did badly

Maybe so, but will he have a great impact given that Labour really haven't done too well.


Political spin? You're completely ignoring the fact that they only gained 31% of the national share, that's no increase in the vote. They've won many seats in wards where the right-wing vote was due to be split between Conservatives and UKIP. The predictions on this election have been entirely wrong, seats maybe. Councils? Only 6 more. So let's be realistic and objective here. The fact is, Labour did badly. Seats may seem fancy, but if they don't have control then there's not a lot they can do.

Interesting. I know on Friday morning I was confused by some of the coverage (someone on here copied someone's tweet that Labour had a terrible night in one council where they retained control, but now had a serious opposition - how can retaining control be terrible?)

Because the council becomes marginal, their share of the vote greatly decreased. A terrible result for the main opposition, it really doesn't bode well for Labour.

 

[Acker79]

Because the council becomes marginal, their share of the vote greatly decreased. A terrible result for the main opposition, it really doesn't bode well for Labour.

No. Terrible is losing your seat when you had no opposition. Keeping your seat but gaining a serious opposition is not "terrible", it isn't ideal, but it is certainly not terrible (especially when the aim of your campaigning is to win/retain a seat and control of a council). I would struggle to accept it could even be described as 'bad'.

You see, much like when people say the word 'legend' is thrown around too much, so are other superlatives. And in this case, superlatives are being misused to describe Labour's (and UKIP's) results in the election.

 

[Gwylan]

The fact is, Labour did badly. Seats may seem fancy, but if they don't have control then there's not a lot they can do.


Because the council becomes marginal, their share of the vote greatly decreased. A terrible result for the main opposition, it really doesn't bode well for Labour.

And yet, Michael Ashcroft's projections, after examining the results, suggested that Labour was on course to win a 40-seat majority. That's Ashcroft as in the Tory peer - in case you want to cry 'spin'. It really wasn't an evening of triumph for Labour but it was a long, long way from "terrible" , no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

I disagree with pretty much most of that article, but I'll sum my brief argument into this.

The first Labour movement - and Keir Hardie's ILP which then became the Labour party, took 40 years from 1890 to get 35% of the popular vote. The whole way through this time they were ridiculed by the establishment and other parties, in many ways similar to UKIP but clearly on different issues. UKIP are and will continue to be a force, thanks to FPTP it will be a slow and gradual process.

 

[Gwylan]

The first Labour movement - and Keir Hardie's ILP which then became the Labour party, took 40 years from 1890 to get 35% of the popular vote. The whole way through this time they were ridiculed by the establishment and other parties, in many ways similar to UKIP but clearly on different issues. UKIP are and will continue to be a force, thanks to FPTP it will be a slow and gradual process.

You're understating the performance of the Labour Party here. The Labour Party won 45 seats in the 1910 GE - that's just 17 years after the formation of the Independent Labour Party (and at a time when there was no universal suffrage).
At the last GE, UKIP - 18 years after its formation - won precisely zero seats. I'd be shocked if it broke into double figures at the next election either.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

And yet, Michael Ashcroft's projections, after examining the results, suggested that Labour was on course to win a 40-seat majority. That's Ashcroft as in the Tory peer - in case you want to cry 'spin'. It really wasn't an evening of triumph for Labour but it was a long, long way from "terrible" , no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise

Isn't it more about reverse spin to tell the Conservative party to get their arse in gear ?

 

[clippedgull]

For the people like me who couldn't be bothered to vote, actually voted, I wonder what the political landscape would look like? For the record I'm a traditional Labour voter, but would have voted UKIP in this election.

 

[Footsoldier]

**** you lefties. Only one winner tonight.

 

[e77]

**** you lefties. Only one winner tonight.

Possibly, although the only thing that will stop David Cameron or Ed Milliband being Prime Minister on June the 1st next year is being hit by a bus or being caught with their trousers down.

 

[Footsoldier]

Possibly, although the only thing that will stop David Cameron or Ed Milliband being Prime Minister on June the 1st next year is being hit by a bus or being caught with their trousers down.

What has that got to do with tonight results?

 

[Albumen]

**** you lefties. Only one winner tonight.

Ummm Labour? If this is repeated for the general election it'll be a Labour and Lib dem coalition. Roll on 2015.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

You're understating the performance of the Labour Party here. The Labour Party won 45 seats in the 1910 GE - that's just 17 years after the formation of the Independent Labour Party (and at a time when there was no universal suffrage).
At the last GE, UKIP - 18 years after its formation - won precisely zero seats. I'd be shocked if it broke into double figures at the next election either.

Yes, true but it is much harder now for parties to establish themselves, especially as the Labour movement had such a big demographic to aim at.
My point is that UKIP are ridiculed much in the same way, it may take UKIP longer but people shouldn't criticise them for slow progress, as it is progress nonetheless.

 

[Footsoldier]

Ummm Labour? If this is repeated for the general election it'll be a Labour and Lib dem coalition. Roll on 2015.

Again, what has it got to do with tonight results?

 

[Albumen]

Again, what has it got to do with tonight results?

Oh tonight's? I haven't even seen them. Sorry. (Goes off to have a look).

 

[Footsoldier]

Oh tonight's? I haven't even seen them. Sorry. (Goes off to have a look).

Yeah, you do that.