NationStates Jolt Archive

· Labour loses 330 council seats
· Tories +188, Lib Dems +108

I know that Local elections aren't interesting anyway, and that British people are the minority on NationStates.

But if allegations are correct that many voted in protest to the war etc. then this doesn't look good for Labour

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/elections2004/story/0,14549,1236480,00.html

Local Election Results (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/elections2004/tables/0,14549,1231654,00.html)

does anybody else have an opinion? or will this thread just die?

It's interesting, though quite normal for local elections. I welcome the results because of the increased turnout and the hope that this might shake Labour out of their complacency. I don't subscribe to the Polly Toynbee theory of supporting Labour because they're the least worst mainstream party. It really bugs me that a vote for the Greens is regarded as a protest vote. They're who I support.

Sorry, somewhat riled by her recent articles.

The European elections should be interesting because the Tories look like getting a kicking as well. An end to the two-party system? Dunno, but I can always dream.

Despite this, i hope Ken gets through for mayor. Norris' first act will be to scrap the congestion charge and that would be a disaster.

Well, I hadn't expected Labour to that bad. Do we know what UKIP got?

wasnt really that bad though. they lost 8 councils, which isnt bad after the war. and at least people voted tory over ukip.

does anybody else have an opinion?
:D

Sorry, I just have to say it again . . . :D

With a little hint of :twisted:

New Labour has been owned. No, actually, ownership does not even begin to describe it.

I mean, check this out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2004/locals/flash_map/html/local_intro.stm

In my fair city of Manchester, they lost 14 seats, 11 of which to the Liberal Democrats, retaining their hold by only 15 seats. In Newcastle, they got absolutely slaughtered, losing 24 seats to the Liberal Democrats, who now have a majority of 18. And all across the country, it has been a death by several hundred cuts, as they lost seats in ones, twos and threes in almost every council.

Today has been a great day for Britain. :D

Update

Councillors

Labour -422
Conservative +244
Lib Dems +117

Councils

Labour -7
Conservative +11
Lib Dems -2

Share of Vote

Conservative 38%
Lib Dems 29%
Labour 26%
Other 7%

BNP worse off

Well, I hadn't expected Labour to that bad. Do we know what UKIP got?

2 councillers (Derby, Kingston-apon-Hull)

BNP: Bradford (4), Broxbourne, Burnley (6), Calderdale (3), Epping Forest (3), Kirklees, Sandwell, Stoke-on-Trent (2).

Exactly TG. A great day for Britain indeed. Any seat that labour loses is good news to me (unless they lose it to say, the BNP)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/vote2004/locals/html/scoreboard.stm

theres the stuff in detail, only five partys actuall controll a council

I mean, check this out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2004/locals/flash_map/html/local_intro.stm



Oooohh pretty.

Can some one clear something up?

here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/vote2004/locals/html/scoreboard.stm) it say that the BNP only have 6 Councillors but according to the Guardian they have 6 in Burnely alone.

maybe the 6 councillors in Burnley are the only ones? Unlikely, but possible. Otherwise, I blame bad info. conflicting statistics are quite common.

I think they have lost some though.

I think they have lost some though.

They are. Dudley, Sandwell and Thurrock (one lost in each area).

Okay, so what does this mean on a national scale? Sorry, I'm American and don't really understand the nuances of British politics.

I read the article from Yahoo on this and it sounds like Labour had their asses handed to them, and yet the article also seemed to say that Labour's opponents hadn't really taken advantage of Labour's weakness over the war. It argued that the Liberal Democrats had done better than normal because of their anti-war stance, but didn't really go farther than that.

So I guess what I'm asking is this: Is Blair gone in 2005 and if he is, is it because he's a liability to his own party or because a Tory beats him?

So I guess what I'm asking is this: Is Blair gone in 2005 and if he is, is it because he's a liability to his own party or because a Tory beats him?
He will probably be gone because he is a liability to the party, dressed up as a piece of "I've had a good run, but I want to spend more time with my family" BS. The Conservatives are not going to win in 2005, but New Labour will still get hammered if Blair is around. They currently have two thirds of the parliamentary seats, I doubt they will do much better than 55% unless he goes. If Gordon Brown replaces him, it looks better for New Labour, but they will still take losses.

I also think that the vote breakdown is very interesting. New Labour is ranked third in number of people voting for them behind the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The reason they are in power is the way the boundaries have been drawn, and the nature of the electoral system. Under anything resembling proportional representation, they would get wiped out. They have barely a quarter of the country behind them.

Gerrymandering.

Well Ken won in the end, does anyone know what the breakdown of the Assembly is now?

Gerrymandering.

Well Ken won in the end, does anyone know what the breakdown of the Assembly is now?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/elections2004/tables/0,14549,1235954,00.html

I haven't read through it, but I think I head on the news that The newly new-Labour Ken will not have a lot of Labour support in the assembly because it is there.

btw. did anyone here "We've been here before" earlier. I switched it on after it started and thought I had catched the end of the news. I got a shock when it said the PM resigned.

Was Labor outed mostly on the anti-war sentiment? If so, I think that's absolutely great and it should send a real message to some of us here in the US, especially *cough* our current administration *cough*.

Of course that's Britain and not the US but still, it's cool.

Was Labor outed mostly on the anti-war sentiment? If so, I think that's absolutely great and it should send a real message to some of us here in the US, especially *cough* our current administration *cough*.

Of course that's Britain and not the US but still, it's cool.

Anti-War sentiment could explain the Lib-Dem surge in seats but not the Conservative one (as they were largely pro-war iirc ). Conservatives probably got votes off people who were not quite sure on wether to trust Blair on things such as Europe, and were not vehemently anti-Europe as UKIP.

I see, thanks. Like Incertonia, I'm American and admit that means I know next to nothing about Brit politics. I've been trying to read up on them lately but I think threads here are far more interesting than news articles.

Anyway, I think your parties are all very confusing. You must have at least ten mostly-prominent ones. Not that I think a two party system is so much greater :P

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Bad night for Blair.......but who, who follows British politics expected much better? Remember the fool Mongoose Spatula? He kept forcasting that the BliNP would take councils by the dozens (and remember this is a 'grudge' vote, that won't be reflected in the national election). They have an overall gain of 3 seats........what a triumph! Hah! Let's see how long it takes for the BliNP to lose them. And the useless tories should have done much better. Overall, a good night for British democracy.

I see, thanks. Like Incertonia, I'm American and admit that means I know next to nothing about Brit politics. I've been trying to read up on them lately but I think threads here are far more interesting than news articles.

Without asking you don't learn. Which reminds me of a few things I need to ask.

Anyway, I think your parties are all very confusing. You must have at least ten mostly-prominent ones. Not that I think a two party system is so much greater :P[/quote]

We don't really. It is mainly Labour, Conservatives (also called Tory) and Liberal Democrats. Of course there are regional ones. Plaid Cymru (Wales), the SNP (Scotland), and loads in Northern Ireland (UUP, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP etc). But the majoy parties have to watch their backs, especialy for single issue parties (eg UKIP) because they can take votes away and maybe not win but cause another to win (and in Britain it is winner takes all)

Really it is too late for me to explain this rather boring subject (imo, God knows why I am doing it at Uni)

Bad night for Blair.......but who, who follows British politics expected much better? Remember the fool Mongoose Spatula? He kept forcasting that the BliNP would take councils by the dozens (and remember this is a 'grudge' vote, that won't be reflected in the national election). They have an overall gain of 3 seats........what a triumph! Hah! Let's see how long it takes for the BliNP to lose them. And the useless tories should have done much better. Overall, a good night for British democracy.

Try here, http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/2004_june/news_june24.htm , not interesting. But it doesn't have the confident tone of most their press releases.

Bad night for Blair.......but who, who follows British politics expected much better? Remember the fool Mongoose Spatula? He kept forcasting that the BliNP would take councils by the dozens (and remember this is a 'grudge' vote, that won't be reflected in the national election). They have an overall gain of 3 seats........what a triumph! Hah! Let's see how long it takes for the BliNP to lose them. And the useless tories should have done much better. Overall, a good night for British democracy.

Try here, http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/2004_june/news_june24.htm , not interesting. But it doesn't have the confident tone of most their press releases.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Thanks for that link. If it wasn't the BliNP I'd almost say it had a humble tone.