A Word on the Local Election Results So Far

[miss_s_b]

Yes, the coalition parties got a drubbing. Yes, Labour won back lots of seats. But that's not the big story, and Labour would do well to resist the urge to rub Lib Dem faces in it (not that they are resisting, of course...). The big story of what happened yesterday was turnout. In most places it was less than 30%. LESS THAN 30%!

This is not a ringing endorsement of the Labour party, this is a big two fingers up to ALL politicians. It explains the Green wipeout in Cambridge when they had net gains overall, and came close to taking (for example) Birkenhead with over 40% of those who turned out voting for them. It explains the gains for Respect in Bradford - and we're already seeing hopes for all sorts, including saving the Odeon, attached to Respect, which I shall be very sad but very unsurprised to see dashed.

Triumphalist Labourites tweeting that (for example) in one ward in Hull they got 80-odd percent of the vote and intentionally not mentioning the turnout (18.7%) are 1, missing the point and 2, setting themselves up for a big fall. When you factor in turnout, that Hull ward was won by 15.7% of the vote. That's not something to crow about, not for politicians of ANY stripe.

The public hates us ALL. Yes, at the moment they detest the coalition parties more than Labour, but that won't last if Labour get in. Politicians of all parties need to be very worried indeed about the message that extremely low turnouts are sending us, because at some point there's going to be a really big upset if we don't. Possibly even if we do.

Comments

[daweaver]

The big story of what happened yesterday was turnout. In most places it was less than 30%. LESS THAN 30%!

For comparison, turnout at the 2008 elections - the last standalone council elections - in England was about 35%, in Wales about 44%. Comparisons in Scotland are meaningless, as the last council elections coincided with elections to the Scottish Parliament.

The public hates us ALL. Yes, at the moment they detest the coalition parties more than Labour, but that won't last if Labour get in.

Or, the half of voters who do vote in local elections are primarily motivated to wreak revenge on the Westminster government. This was true under Labour, it was true under Major. They are encouraged by the leading parties, who campaign on national matters. Love them or loathe them, Nick Clegg and David Cameron are not going to be your local councillors. Robert Winston can say what he likes, however remote from the truth, but councils have very little to do with healthcare.

I enjoyed the Green's broadcast, because it concentrated on the party's values, both the specific policies and a huge amount of hope. As much as I dreaded the UKIP broadcast, it successfully projected that party's core value: that everything's going to hell in a handcart. From the big three, nothing to move me.

The problem, I fear, is that politicians are so frightened of a day's bad headlines that they don't do anything slightly controversial, and come across as weak and weaselly. As much as contributors dislike the policies of Boris and/or Ken, these blokes have no fear, they are able to brush off the mud churned up and get on with what they do. They're characters, they're almost cartoon figures, but behind the character is a serious politician.

I agree that people need to believe their vote counts. Yesterday, I had the option to vote for the party I'm a member of, in the (vain) hope that the candidate would finish above someone, anyone. Or I could support the council's ruling coalition, which means voting for a Tory who believes mobile phones cause cancer. Or I could have voted for the successful Labour candidate, who (like her fellow councillors) appears to represent the other end of the ward. Under STV, my ward would probably end up electing two Labour members and a Tory, but I'd probably know that I helped elect at least one of these people.