Election Year or Fear!

[swaledale]

Swale, "Not sure where your determining wthat at least half of the Reform votes have come from Labour?"

A simple analysis of facts. I recommend you look at where Reform gained councillors and who from. It's not tricky. I've been generous in assessing only half of those seats switched from labour.

After 131 results Con have lost 557 councillors, Ref gained 1444. Let's assume all Con losses switched to Ref and the LibDem, Green and Independents gains all came from a Labour drift left, then some 887 representatives in effect switched Lab to Ref - more than half of Ref gains. Source BBC, Sky News.

But please continue to live in laa-laa land if you think otherwise - and you have the gall to call Reform voters thick ��. Perhaps the analogy should be to Nero - you can sit there proving Reform are losing as England burns

Except that you haven't analysed the facts correctly, because the transfer of seats does not indicate where the votes have gone, for that you need to look at the split of votes between the parties.

I'll explain it for you. If say Labour had won a council seat with 30% of the vote previously, if that vote in this election is split between say The Green party, Labour and Lib Dems, for simplicity I'll say 10% each, and the Cons or other parties get 9%, then Reform only need to get 11% or more to win that seat without any Labour voters switching to Reform.

Obviously in practice its obviously more complicated than that but the principle is correct. A simple anlaysis of the votes cast for each party for each seat shows that in the main thats what has happened.

Of course some people who voted labour last time will have voted reform but the majority of votes that formerly went to Labour have gone to other parties and not Reform. A considerable number of people who voted Conservative last time have voted Reform, indeed that is where most of their votes have come from.

What we have is a situation where the voters have split on both the left and the right of politics thus enabling Reform and to a lesser extent The greens and Lib dems to win seats.

This is even more so in the Welsh and Scottish elections, where Plaid and SNP were the major winners.

I am not proving reform are losers, though their overall share of the vote at 26% is down on last time, indeed I've stated before that the biggest danger is this splitting of the vote. hence my reference to those that vote for another left party instead of Labour because of the "Gaza" issue. If that results in reform winning a seat, then they may well end up with a government far less symapthetic to their cause. But then that has been the lefts problem for decades, which has now been followed by the Conservatives, who historically were rather better at keeping a broad church of voters on board.

And I thought you were good with figures.

[swaledale]

Don't take my word for it though.

John Curtice makes the interesting point that Labour are losing lots of seat to Reform, but not because Labour voters have moved there. Labour are actually losing votes to the Greens, as usual, but the Tories are losing votes to Reform, and in Labour seats that?s enough to give the vote to Reform.

John Curtice also notes that the Reform vote is strongest in those areas which voted Leave.

[ramAnag]

I'll explain it for you. If say Labour had won a council seat with 30% of the vote previously, if that vote in this election is split between say The Green party, Labour and Lib Dems, for simplicity I'll say 10% each, and the Cons or other parties get 9%, then Reform only need to get 11% or more to win that seat without any Labour voters switching to Reform.

Obviously in practice its obviously more complicated than that but the principle is correct. A simple anlaysis of the votes cast for each party for each seat shows that in the main thats what has happened.

Of course some people who voted labour last time will have voted reform but the majority of votes that formerly went to Labour have gone to other parties and not Reform. A considerable number of people who voted Conservative last time have voted Reform, indeed that is where most of their votes have come from.

What we have is a situation where the voters have split on both the left and the right of politics thus enabling Reform and to a lesser extent The greens and Lib dems to win seats.

This is even more so in the Welsh and Scottish elections, where Plaid and SNP were the major winners.

At the risk of the usual brickbat from the usual suspects, I think that’s an excellent explanation.
There are exceptions, eg Barnsley, but generally speaking I agree that that’s exactly what’s happened and is in line with my earlier 26/74% reasoning as regards why Farage will not be the next PM.

If one looks elsewhere we seem now very similar to France and Holland where there is a significant right wing element - let’s say somewhere between a quarter and a third - but sufficient resistance (appropriate word that) to stand up to those who wish to further the politics of division and hatred.

As regards Starmer. He may not last much longer, I’m obviously unsure, but I don’t get quite why he is being made the fall-guy. Not sure anyone could have inherited the mess he was left and turned things round in less than two years, especially with Trump causing chaos from the sidelines for at least the last three months.
Starmer may not be charismatic but, certainly in comparison with his immediate predecessors, he has appeared statesmanlike throughout. Those who wish to take advantage would do well to remember, ‘uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.’

[SithHappens]

https://observer.co.uk/news/politics...gs-5m-donation

Won't happen but would be good to see. He'd win again of course though.

[ramAnag]

https://observer.co.uk/news/politics...gs-5m-donation

Won't happen but would be good to see. He'd win again of course though.

Good article. The danger is all in that penultimate paragraph, but Starmer is right imo…Farage should face more scrutiny about the sources of his (and Reform UK’s) financial benefactors.

[MadAmster]

https://observer.co.uk/news/politics...gs-5m-donation

Won't happen but would be good to see. He'd win again of course though.

Would he win though? There's been crews with cameras there asking what locals thought of MPs voting against more protection for women and girls or reducing worker's rights etc. The ones shown all said they couldn't support anyone who did those things. All were surpised to find out it was Farage who voted against thos and other Bills.

Add to that the fact that he's never there, doesn't do surgeries for constituents... I think he'd lose. I'd tip Carol Vorderman, standing as an independent (I think she would) taking the seat.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Except that you haven't analysed the facts correctly, because the transfer of seats does not indicate where the votes have gone, for that you need to look at the split of votes between the parties.

I'll explain it for you. If say Labour had won a council seat with 30% of the vote previously, if that vote in this election is split between say The Green party, Labour and Lib Dems, for simplicity I'll say 10% each, and the Cons or other parties get 9%, then Reform only need to get 11% or more to win that seat without any Labour voters switching to Reform.

Obviously in practice its obviously more complicated than that but the principle is correct. A simple anlaysis of the votes cast for each party for each seat shows that in the main thats what has happened.

Of course some people who voted labour last time will have voted reform but the majority of votes that formerly went to Labour have gone to other parties and not Reform. A considerable number of people who voted Conservative last time have voted Reform, indeed that is where most of their votes have come from.

What we have is a situation where the voters have split on both the left and the right of politics thus enabling Reform and to a lesser extent The greens and Lib dems to win seats.

This is even more so in the Welsh and Scottish elections, where Plaid and SNP were the major winners.

I am not proving reform are losers, though their overall share of the vote at 26% is down on last time, indeed I've stated before that the biggest danger is this splitting of the vote. hence my reference to those that vote for another left party instead of Labour because of the "Gaza" issue. If that results in reform winning a seat, then they may well end up with a government far less symapthetic to their cause. But then that has been the lefts problem for decades, which has now been followed by the Conservatives, who historically were rather better at keeping a broad church of voters on board.

And I thought you were good with figures.

Ok I'm not bothering arguing. Clearly it was a great set of results for labour and the loss of councillors and control of councils on the red wall is all illusory.

[swaledale]

At the risk of the usual brickbat from the usual suspects, I think that’s an excellent explanation.
There are exceptions, eg Barnsley, but generally speaking I agree that that’s exactly what’s happened and is in line with my earlier 26/74% reasoning as regards why Farage will not be the next PM.

If one looks elsewhere we seem now very similar to France and Holland where there is a significant right wing element - let’s say somewhere between a quarter and a third - but sufficient resistance (appropriate word that) to stand up to those who wish to further the politics of division and hatred.

As regards Starmer. He may not last much longer, I’m obviously unsure, but I don’t get quite why he is being made the fall-guy. Not sure anyone could have inherited the mess he was left and turned things round in less than two years, especially with Trump causing chaos from the sidelines for at least the last three months.
Starmer may not be charismatic but, certainly in comparison with his immediate predecessors, he has appeared statesmanlike throughout. Those who wish to take advantage would do well to remember, ‘uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.’

He is being blamed, because he is the leader. Yes in comparision to those that went before he is much better and ironically has achieved a lot, but for whatever reason voters don't like him, I suspect much can attributed to the majority of the media constantly being negative about him, that combined with a series of entirely avoidable mistakes, but if he is "toxic" to voters I see no way back.

The relative approval ratings of the various leaders is intersting. As always one takes these with a degree of caution.

Net favourability towards Keir Starmer (-48), Kemi Badenoch (-25) and Nigel Farage (-39) is largely unchanged since last month. Ed Davey’s March net favourability score of -14 is his lowest since October 2024

Zack Polanski is -36

Make of that what you will!!

[swaledale]

Re the above, these are net sapproval ratings, i.e. the difference between those that approve and those that disapprove of each leader.

[ramAnag]

Ok I'm not bothering arguing. Clearly it was a great set of results for labour and the loss of councillors and control of councils on the red wall is all illusory.

No one, absolutely no one, has suggested that, GP. All that is being suggested is that the left/left of centre vote is much more fragmented than that of the Right and that, despite Farage having an undeniably relatively successful set of results, his support is still down on last time.