downfall of labour

labour have lost 241Councillors so far with Conservitives gaining 519 so far

is the start of the downfall of labour after a decade of them being the ruling party?





[edit on 4-5-2007 by bodrul]

Originally posted by bodrul
is the start of the downfall of labour after a decade of them being the ruling party?

- I doubt that very much.

First of all the results were not the horrific drubbing some claimed they would be and secondly this is merely a return to the usual 'mid-term' dip in form Govs have always experienced in the past......in fact the unusual thing was the way in which this Labour Gov had avoided those so-called 'mid-term blues' until very recently.

When opposition parties have nothing else to talk up they suddenly decide local elections and the occasional Westminster by-election(s) are the most important things in the whole world, Labour and the LibDems did it during the tory 18yrs and now the tories and LibDems are doing it during the current labour years.
What else are they going to do anyways, huh?

Cameron imagines his tory party getting 40% of the vote is "stunning".
It's certainly not a bad result but it's still well short of the 47% Labour were getting in local elections pre-1997, again.
But again, what else is he going to say, huh?
(this same conversation was had during the last round of local election results)

The truth is those tory results aren't signs of a massive shift in opinion, the tory vote is around what it was last time (the BBC say maybe up 1%) and Labour's vote is around what it was last time (again the BBC say maybe up 1%).

The most important issue facing anyone in this is that a local election - particularly one in which the tory party have repeatedly said was a last chance to bash Blair - is not a general election, it's nothing like a GE.

......and people downplay the effect at election time of Gordon Brown's solid economic record and Cameron's absence of any record at anything at all (unless you want to count being one of Norman Lamont's bag-carriers and advisers during 'black Wednesday) at their peril.

There's a long way to go until the general election and the usual historic pattern is that incumbent Govs suffer dips in popularity during the mid-term but recover noticeably at genera election time.


[edit on 4-5-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

Sminky, I knew you'd be the first to reply to this one

And you parroted Tony Blair's excuses word for word, I like it

fact of the matter is, with 41% of the vote to the Cons and only 27% going to Labour, you'll be hard pressed to come up with an excuse..ahem..sorry, reason, why Labour did so pitifully at the polls.

Ahh, today is a good day...

(Not that I'm a fan of the Tories, but I cannot stand Labour)

it may not be the GE
but it shows that people have and are losng faith in labour
and with that it will reflect on the main elections where labour will lose to conservitives.

update on results

There's nothing "excuse" about it Stuy (and I haven't seen or read TB's comments either).

The fact remains the tory vote (40% approx) is no better than during the last round of local elections and it has not reached anywhere near the 'high water mark' set by Labour pre 1997 (47% approx).
That's just the truth of the matter.

You'll also find these local election results are slightly better than the last round for Labour.....and Labour went on to win the 2005 general election.
(that one I did get from thenews)

It is also true that local elections results are usually no indicator whatsoever of how a general election will work out - especially when that GE is so far away.

I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken Bodrul, during the last 30yrs our British electoral history is full of opposition parties doing pretty well at the local elections and failing at the subsequent general election.
You cannot make that kind of simplistic conclusion from these events (tho the TV and media are bound to endlessly run 'let's imagine that this were to happen in a general election.......blah blah blah").
It's fun for them & keeps them in their highly paid jobs commenting and speculating over events on our 24hr rolling media.

(.....anyone else ever notice just how much of our supposed 'news' content these days is actually talking heads of one description or another editorialising, interpreting and commenting on the actual news?)

These are such obvious and basic points of fact that I'm not surprised you heard them elsewhere, stu.

Anybodies' wishful thinking on this doesn't make the truth of my points any less truthful.
Sorry but that's how it is.

(and that is a truth I'd be saying if the situation were reversed and it was a tory Gov in power.......in fact I did used to say it during the bad old days.
It's just a fact of British political life that the opposition parties inflate local elections way beyond their true importance - especially after Thatcher & Co. stripped out most of the serious local powers; like I said, what else are they going to say?).



[edit on 4-5-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

Don't take my comments too seriously Smink, I just know your an ardent Labour fan and knew you'd rush here in there defence!

True though that LE's are not a true indicator, otherwise we'd see BNP guys in Parliament, but it is a better barometer than a poll which only asks 1000 people what they think.

I think that what is interesting is the pretty feeble performance of the LibDems.

Against a background of what may be interpreted as stalling support of the Tories and the inevitable poor showing of a mid term, third term Government party I find it quite remarkable that a party with great traditions in local elections has, if anything, gone backwards in terms of support.

Originally posted by stumason
Don't take my comments too seriously Smink, I just know your an ardent Labour fan and knew you'd rush here in there defence!

- NP stuy, I didn't.

.....and I'm "defending" nothing, just giving my counter-points as per.

it is a better barometer than a poll which only asks 1000 people what they think.

- Well that is very true.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the political parties do not or should not take these results seriously, they do and they will (very seriously) but it's the interpretation they each give to the results is what I'm on about.

The powerless parties talk themsleves and their results up as signs they're on the verge of winning
(David Steel in 1981 & 'go back to your constituencies and prepare for Gov' anybody? - people tend to forget that that was said on the back of spectacularly good local election and by election results - and not forgetting runs in the polls at 50% and over).

Those in power just have to take it on the chin & say they are listening and make some changes - and they don't get much bigger than changing PMs as we're about to see formally happen in the next 6 -8 weeks.

With regards to the Lib Dems, it is one of the big surprises I think. I'm not entirely sure why, either... though I'm beginning to think they chose the wrong leader in Menzies Campbell. He doesn't seem to have what it takes to take Blair and Cameron on (though taking on Blair will become a moot point in a week or so), whereas I think with Charles Kennedy he could identify with people on a better level. As for the drink problem... well, he was on Question Time last night and was on very good form. It shows he's human, just like the rest of us, and I honestly don't fault the man for it.

Onto Labour... not the disaster predicted. In fact, they were up overall compared to last year in terms of the percentage of the vote, I think. Is it the end of the Labour Party? Good Lord no... people were saying the same about the Tories after 1997, and yet they're bouncing back. But the result does show that Gordon Brown has a long way to go to get voters to reconnect with the Labour Party once more.

I'd also like to jump off-topic for a little while and talk about the SNP. They have a one-seat lead in the Scottish Parliament (not nearly enough to form a majority government) so they'll either have to go into a coalition with the Lib Dems and Greens or they form a minority government. Either way, it looks like the independence issue has been shot to pieces - they don't have nearly enough seats to push it through, nor do I think they have the support of enough of the Scottish people (since not everyone who voted SNP wanted independence - some were protest votes for those who were disillusioned with Labour).

Overall, an extremely interesting election. We'll be seeing some major changes in the future on all sides, I think.

At some stage, Labour will lose an general election and be replaced by the Tories. You can say this is wrong and will ruin the country but this is part of the cycle of Government.

Get used to it, the Tories will be back in Government in the next 5 years.

This is how it goes.

Remember, the next Government will be decided by a small percentage of swing voters, not the did hard Labour and Tory voters.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
At some stage, Labour will lose an general election and be replaced by the Tories.

- That may be so at some point in the future but then again Japan shows what can happen
(it is afterall what the tory party imagined for itself during their last period in office).

It is not entirely unknown in the western world for a 'ruling party' or ruling coalition to remain in office for decades and to have effective opposition coming from within itself.

Besides the personalities involved necessarily changing over time there is no actual guarantee of change in Gov.

Get used to it, the Tories will be back in Government in the next 5 years.

- No Freedom ERP, that's just your own wishful thinking.

You obviously don't want to admit this - cos I bet you already know it - but the Labour result in these local elections is actually better than last time.......and last time they went on to win the general election in May 2005.

The future remains unknown and all possibilities are out there - particularly ones where the highly experienced, thoroughly competent and sober Gordon Brown thrashes the principle-free, inexperienced, immature wannabe Cameron.

Remember, the next Government will be decided by a small percentage of swing voters, not the did hard Labour and Tory voters.

- That's just political theory, they tried going with that stuff last time and ended up with a share of the vote in 2005 that was 0.25% higher than they had in 2001.

At that rate of improvement they'll take about a century and a half to form the UK Gov.

Still, we all have our dreams, right?

Labour did better in Wales and Scotland than the Tories. Thats the problem. Scotland was lost by just 1 seat. Come on guys, Labour were 10 POINTS behind the SNP only three weeks ago and have pulled back to get an near equal share of the vote.

Tories did not get the break through in the North. The Labour heartland MAY be broken, but its not lost to the Tories.

Remember, if this was a general election, voters would think twice.

Sminkeypinkey, always a pleasure to duel with you!!!

The UK political landscape is far different from that of Japan. The history of Japan is still very reflected in its Government and the political leanings of the major parties.

Of course, a Government should plan and expect to be in power for as long as it can, but the people, I think, like change in the UK, and we will both be long gone from this planet before the people will allow only elected Government to remain in office for more than 5 terms.

The people will elect a Tory Government either at the next or one after that General election. The people will just get bored and want a change. There is not logic here, and people soon forget how goos things were after a couple of set backs.

I fear Tony Blair has does a huge amount of damage to Labour with just one issue. The Iraq War. More people are angry over that and will forgot all the other things that Labour has done. Look at the issues that got people out on the streets in London in huge numbers. Fox hunting and the Iraq war.

And people do vote differently at local and general elections. I think it is quite dangerous to compare the votong habits at the local councils elections to those of a general election. But what else is there to compare against so I suppose will will have to live with the comparsion being made.

Now Scotland....not entirely comfortable with the labour/liberal pact. The people of Scotland has given the SNP more seats that Labour and will I am sure feel very betrayed if the SNP leader is not first minister. But hay that is the fun of PR elections

Back at you Freedom ERP.

I, of course, don't disagree that Japan is different; I'm just saying that in the western world the possibility not only exists but does happen.
Basically never say never is the idea I think.

Of course your speculation regarding the future may be more accurate than mine but I very much doubt a tory Gov next time (in essence the economy is too good - and as the last tory 18yrs illustrated even 2 of the most severe recessions the country had faced in modern times wasn't any guarantee they were going to be ejected at a following general election(s).)

I think Iraq has hurt this Gov enormously - so much so that without it I think Labour would have kept almost all of it's huge majority and the Cameron repairs to the tory party would all be for nothing.


Key here though is of course Iraq's association with TB - such is the flip-side of the opposition's determined 'use' of the issue (however hypocritical given their own stance) to attack TB over it (naturally enough tho, what else were they ever going to do with a PM as then highly popular as TB was?).
But he is going in a matter of weeks.
How Gordon Brown proceeds on the issue will be very interesting.
Iraq has been tied much much more to TB than 'Labour' per se and here is where it gets particularly interesting; it's well known for instance that Gordon Brown has his own views on the matter.

I have to say as far as your views on Scotland go maybe you're letting your personal prejudices cloud your judgement in that one?

'The people of Scotland' have given the SNP just 1 more seat in the Scotts Parliament than Labour.

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT RESULTS (final results)
Party.............. Const............ Regn.............. +/-........... Tot

SNP .....................21................ 26............. +20............ 47
LAB..................... 37.................. 9................ -4............ 46
CON......................4..................13................ -1............ 17
LD...................... 11................... 5................ -1............ 16
Others.................. 0................... 3...............-14.............. 3

The people of Scotland have kept the SNP in a minority situation (as they have everyone else).

The people of Scotland have elected candidates in numbers requiring them to agree coalition.
There is not a shred of "betrayal" in that circumstance if the SNP are incapable of finding sufficient agreement to either be in Gov or have their leader as first minister.
Such are the realities of the situation.



[edit on 5-5-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

That is a real interesting question, how tarnished is Gordon Brown by the Iraq war?

This is something the Tories will want to exploit. After all, Brown is a senior member of the cabinet, and it is acceptable there is collective responsible within cabinet, and it had to be on side as it had to find the money to fund the war.

I think Brown has done a great job of distancing himself from the worst aspects of the war in Iraq. If you asked most people, they would say that Tony Blair took us to war and not the Labour Goverment or the cabinet.

A very valid point on the whole Scottish parliament, sminkeypinkey. I would perfer to see the SNP in the lead just to see how a nationalist party would run the country.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
That is a real interesting question, how tarnished is Gordon Brown by the Iraq war?

The troops will be coming home.
You can bank on that. Brown knows that they have to come home asap if Labour is going to win again.

Brown will be worth watching.
It's very obvious he will do his best to distinguish and distance himself from TB & stand out as his own man (it was always bound to happen but it's pretty clear they have their differences anyways......and everyone knows it, which is surely something GB will benefit from).

Scotland will be interesting in the coming weeks I'm sure.
As you said Freedom ERP, "that is the fun of PR elections".

I might add that maybe a 'system' they might look at is the one here in Northern Ireland where all the parties with a certain percentage of the vote are entitled to head Gov Ministry(s) or Gov Committee(s).

If you haven't encountered it before it's called the d'Hondt formula, you can find out more about it here .

It's really about trying to ensure cooperative rather than adversarial politics, as much democratic representation in our Gov as possible and as few as possible outside and uninvolved......and if it can be made to work in NI I suggest it stands a good chance anywhere.

We're used to combative politics at Westminster & perhaps in terms of gaining a clear and decisive answer at the polls FPTP has something to be said for it. Perhaps, tho that is also a reflection of a 2-party state which I am fairly sure is not the optimal solution for us.
But in terms of the devolved administrations I do think a broader, more collective and cooperative approach is preferable.

Im just wondering what will happen if neither the SNP or Labour can , make a coalition Gov, willcontrolgo back to Westminster?

Wont that cause crap ???

They have how long to form a ruling Gov in scotland brfore the UK Gov steps in?28 days or sumthing right.....

If the SNP can't get a coalition together then they'll have to govern as a minority government. I'm sure they can make deals with the Lib Dems and the Greens (and possibly even Labour) for certain pieces of legislation. Doesn't seem like they'll go for the referendum, though, which was apparently the reason why the Lib Dems turned down the offer.

Michael Portillo, former Conservative Defence Secretary and leadership candidate, has suggested that the results might not be all that bad for Gordon Brown in a pretty interesting article here.

What do you all make of it? It seems reasonable, I suppose, if Brown makes a clear break from Tony Blair. I shall be watching Mr. Brown's premiership with great interest, and I wish him the best (I believe in giving the poor chap a chance, anyway ).

[edit on 7/5/07 by Ste2652]