Terrible for labour really. The govt is openly corrupt, failing, and the economy is on the rocks yet starmer/labour seem to have little appeal outside of the London 'metropolitan elite'.Looks like a poor night for Starmer, a few decent results but not a real breakthrough up against the worst government in my lifetime
Given the current Conservative majority and the collapse of Labour in Scotland, that is the new reality. Until people in England accept that, then they will probably continue to have a Conservative government for the foreseeable.i think that would be a bad move for both the Lib Dems and Labour. I like that the Lib Dems have separate policies to Labour, particularly at local level. If they basically combine with Labour I wouldn’t vote for them - I don’t like Labour.
for me it would be Labour admitting they can’t win on their own. Terrible government, but still can’t win. That’s not a great look
Yes, Labour share of the vote outside London is actually down.Terrible for labour really. The govt is openly corrupt, failing, and the economy is on the rocks yet starmer/labour seem to have little appeal outside of the London 'metropolitan elite'.
Surely not everyone in London is part of this ‘metropolitan elite’? The more interesting question for me is why does Labour appeal more to working people in London but less so to working people in other parts of the country?Terrible for labour really. The govt is openly corrupt, failing, and the economy is on the rocks yet starmer/labour seem to have little appeal outside of the London 'metropolitan elite'.
Given the current Conservative majority and the collapse of Labour in Scotland, that is the new reality. Until people in England accept that, then they will probably continue to have a Conservative government for the foreseeable.
Some people will accept it, just that none of us can tell whether enough people would do so in a General Election. Labour as it is just cannot win on its own.people aren’t going to accept voting for some kind or merged party though. As I said at local level the policies of Labour and Lib Dems are very different in lots of cases.
two separate parties. I’m not going to vote for a party I don’t like, just to stop the tories winning - especially not on local issues.
Labour should be winning anyway. They shouldn’t need tactical voting to have a chance
Surely not everyone in London is part of this ‘metropolitan elite’? The more interesting question for me is why does Labour appeal more to working people in London but less so to working people in other parts of the country?
All parties are increasingly selective about where they will stand and how much money and effort they will expend.Is it common at local election level for parties not to contest seats?
There were no LibDems on the ballot here (east London).
Some of Dowden's claims are a bit harder to judge as "wins in Hartlepool" appear to be taking them from Independents. Surely that would then come down to what they were before they were independents.
More rural places aren't often going to jump from blue to red, but may go blue to orange or green; there'll be more chance of making a difference that way - going to NOC or from NOC to a party is more likely than a complete change.
Is it common at local election level for parties not to contest seats?
There were no LibDems on the ballot here (east London).
Some of Dowden's claims are a bit harder to judge as "wins in Hartlepool" appear to be taking them from Independents. Surely that would then come down to what they were before they were independents.
More rural places aren't often going to jump from blue to red, but may go blue to orange or green; there'll be more chance of making a difference that way - going to NOC or from NOC to a party is more likely than a complete change.