Council elections 2019

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

RC's figures are a bit out of date. Net Conservative losses now over 900.

Now over 1,100.

Just hit 1,200

Matthewfalle wrote:

well, so long as the racist scum at ukip don't gain anything and faragethekhunt remains a nothing then carry on fellas, as you were.

He's saving himself for May :shock:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

well, so long as the racist scum at ukip don't gain anything and faragethekhunt remains a nothing then carry on fellas, as you were.

He's saving himself for May :shock:

Theresa must be worried.
On all levels! :shock:

Cons -1300

Lab -77

The way I see it is that Labour hasn't lost much at all... thing is you can't expect a former Tory to vote for Corbyn's party, therefore it's lib Dem or Green. The ambition of Labour is somewhat capped by how many are prepared to vote for socialism

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It's kind of traditional that the party with the most seats is the winner. The margin may be less here, but a win is still a win.

If you disagree with the above, I'd be interested to hear your theory on how any other party has 'won' these elections by ending up substantially less seats than the Tories.

In the meantime, my commiserations to the losers. You tried hard but it wasn't enough

You would make a fine Tory party Chairman

Why thank you.

Although to use a football analogy, I'm simply pointing out that the last match was won say 4-2 and this one was won 4-3. I'll take the win while others try to delude themselves that it wasn't a win

thegreatdivide wrote:

1334 Tory seats gone.
1252 more seats lost than Labour (-82).

They've been pumped.

See what I mean SC?

Ahahahahaaha that is excellent ^^

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

1334 Tory seats gone.
1252 more seats lost than Labour (-82).

They've been pumped.

See what I mean SC?

Quite approproate for a Lib Dem supporter as you're in third place At least you're not deluded...

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ahahahahaaha that is excellent ^^

Which party has the most council seats?

Sure, but that's no different from UKIP claiming to have 'won' the last European elections. They had the largest number of UK MEPs but so what? It had no effect on the overall direction of the European Parliament. They didn't win anything in any meaningful way. As a voter in a local election all you care about is who ends up running your local authority; other LAs are of no consequence. As far as you can draw any GE predictions from the local elections, the projected national vote share was I think 28% each for Conservatives and Labour and 11% for the LibDems. I can't see any agitating for an early GE on those figures. I see more coalitions to come.

I'm sure you'd be taking a different tack if the Lib Dems had secured the largest number of councillors in this election

I want to grow up to be a politician
And take over this beautiful land
I want to grow up to be a politician
And be the Tory party's number one man
I'll always be tough but I'll never be scary
I want to shoot guns or butter my bread
I'll work in the towns or conservate the prairies
And you can believe the future's ahead
I'll give the young the right to vote as soon as they mature
But spare the rod and spoil the child to help them feel secure
And if I win election day I might give you a job
I'll sign a bill to help the poor to show I'm not a snob
I'll open my door I'm charging no admission
And you can be sure I'll give you my hand
I want to grow up to be a politician
And take over this beautiful land

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ahahahahaaha that is excellent ^^

Which party has the most council seats?

I don't understand the obsession with number of seats (in the media not just by you). Surely the important thing is having overall control of a council? For some reason there is less focus on number of Councils won and lost, presumably as the figures are less sensational. Theoretically a party could have the most Council seats nationwide but not control a single Council.

Pretty sure there is a reasonable correlation between overall number of seats and number of councils controlled.

It's funny how the results matter less to some people at times like this Like the football team manager who says 'we played well' but still lost the match.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ahahahahaaha that is excellent ^^

Which party has the most council seats?

I don't understand the obsession with number of seats (in the media not just by you). Surely the important thing is having overall control of a council? For some reason there is less focus on number of Councils won and lost, presumably as the figures are less sensational. Theoretically a party could have the most Council seats nationwide but not control a single Council.

Pretty sure there is a reasonable correlation between overall number of seats and number of councils controlled.

It's funny how the results matter less to some people at times like this Like the football team manager who says 'we played well' but still lost the match.

Well, I've voted Tory in most elections I've been eligible to vote in! If anything it's supporting your point that the Tories did better than the numbers suggest. I don't think there's a strict correlation between seats and Councils, I haven't seen a summary of how many Councils Labour and Conservative lost control of but are you saying that the Tories lost 15 times the number of Councils overall? When people are winning seats with a few hundred votes it doesn't take much to lose one compared to a constituency.

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ahahahahaaha that is excellent ^^

Which party has the most council seats?

Sure, but that's no different from UKIP claiming to have 'won' the last European elections. They had the largest number of UK MEPs but so what? It had no effect on the overall direction of the European Parliament. They didn't win anything in any meaningful way. As a voter in a local election all you care about is who ends up running your local authority; other LAs are of no consequence. As far as you can draw any GE predictions from the local elections, the projected national vote share was I think 28% each for Conservatives and Labour and 11% for the LibDems. I can't see any agitating for an early GE on those figures. I see more coalitions to come.

I'm sure you'd be taking a different tack if the Lib Dems had secured the largest number of councillors in this election

What can they achieve with this 'win'? Winning an election is worthless unless the opportunity is used to make a positive difference. Like yours, my local councillor was not up for election. So while I'm pleased the LibDems had a good night it makes absolutely zero difference to me. If the results provoke some sort of positive conclusion to the cross party Brexit talks then that will be worthwhile, but on the other hand it might just increase the inertia and that is bad for everyone.

I'm under no illusions that the European elections will be anything other than the Nigel show. And if ever there was an example of squandering electoral good fortune, it's Farage.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Find it very revealing you treat it like football loyalty.

A handy way of illustrating the point.

Very revealing that you're not contesting the win.

What?

So you supported labour a lot in the ‘90s?

I'm not followIng you?

Rick Chasey wrote:

I’m not contesting for the win because I know my part won’t win?

You seem to think winning elections is the end and not the means.

—

I do think you can put a fair bit of the Tory losses (lost 1 in 4 seats over last time)not on Brexit but on the cumulative effects of austerity.

I think you misunderstood my point. As I mentioned above, the party with the most number of councillors = the winner (even if the win no margin is reduced) - and you weren't disputing that.

As for means and ends, well clearly one leads to another.