The fact that Labour did a lot better than the press would have you belive is important. Whether you think the graphic comes from a lefty blog or not does not negate the figures.

Khan is right in that he wants his party to appeal to a broader catchment, but don't all parties?

Not a leadership challenge, just an observation.

In the English local elections Labour beat the Tories, performing better than commentators had predicted. The projected national share (PNS) figures produced by John Curtice for the BBC reveal that Labour came top, on 31 per cent (2 points up on 2015). The Tories were on 30 per cent (5 points down), Lib Dems 15 per cent (4 points up) and UKIP 12 per cent (1 point down). So Labour advanced from 7 per cent behind the Tories last year to one per cent ahead this year. Real progress is being made.

In terms of council seats held, at the point when 118 of the 124 councils had declared, the Tories had lost more councillors (35) than Labour (24), the latter being well below the 100 or 200 losses commentators had previously suggested. Labour also performed better in the South where it held on to all the key councils it controlled, including Southampton, Crawley, and Hastings.

Hardly a failure. But you are right about Scotland. There is time to turn this around.

Edited by nickgusset (08 May 2016 9.50am)

what you are overlooking is that 2012 was a very good year for Labour so it would have to have been a change of revolutionary proportions to win hundreds or a thousand seats. Whereas Foot (for example) was coming back from a low point four years earlier so, whilst it shows Foot was not as bad as subsequent legend has it, it is unfair to compare the two in the way you have. BTW, the reason Foot later had bad results was because of the treachery of Jenkins, Williams, Owen etc in breaking away to the right. Corbyn's problem is not his policies, it is the Blairites on his right.

Also, if there had been no election in Scotland there is no way Thursday could have been said to be a bad night for Labour. If Corbyn is so bad, how come Labour won in London so easily?

Three main reasons......

1. Poor choice of candidate. If Boris had stood again he would have won it easily.
2. Poor/disastrous campaign trying to attack Khan as being a terrorist sympathiser, which was pathetic.
3. Khan actually distanced himself from Corbyn. It speaks volumes about the their relationship that Corbyn chose to visit Bristol yesterday rather than staying in London to celebrate Khan's victory.

Khan also wisely distanced himself from Livingstone too... LOL

Edited by Hoof Hearted (08 May 2016 10.40am)

He appears to be a very shrewd man and an effective communicator.

I've always enjoyed listening to him on QT as he is quick witted, interesting to listen to and not afraid to say what he thinks and believes. He has made it pretty clear that Corbyn is a numpty and holding back Labour's chances of electoral success.

The trouble is that Corbyn's supporters haven't realised that yet and continue to slap each other on the back for what they believe is a winning strategy whereas the voting public continue to be turned off by Corbyn no matter what the Tories do to annoy them.

If Labour can't win because of no support in Scotland then neither should the Tories. Although the Tories got more seats in Scotland they actually got fewer votes (admittedly not many fewer)

That's about right.

Attachment: FB_IMG_1462733817031.jpg (26.79Kb)

It was my dream to play for Palace and to make my debut. I've always played for the club so if I'm playing here, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

- John Bostock (Nov 2007)

Even some of Corbyn's "Chums" in the Labour party pointed out that the party's vote share in key councils, including Nuneaton had fallen sharply adding that since the mid 80s, Opposition parties had always won council seats in England.

In fact former 'Shadow Chancellor' Chris Leslie commented words to the effect that if Corbyn thinks Labour has done well,he would hate to see what badly looks like.

Another Labour MP commented words to the effect that it had been a very disappointing night for Labour.

I think however though this is a stretch to spin out the idea of a defeat, because were the tables turned, no one from the Conservatives would be saying they'd suffered a major set back - And it points more towards a Conservative need to paint a victory than anything else.

Trends of past years in comparison to elections are less reliable, given that in the last election we saw minor / fringe parties do exceptionally well - and consequently pick up a lot of the 'opposition to current government vote' - In a manner not dissimilar to the general election.

I think the reality is that a lot of the 'oppositional vote and protest votes' no longer belong to the mainstream parties, but to the Greens and UKIP, both of whom picked up a stunning rise in seats. Also the Liberal Democrats picked up well from their last hiding.

Problematic for the parliamentary Labour party and the Conservative Party faithful, is that Corbyn isn't as unpopular as they think. Will he win an election, maybe not, but he's probably more popular with a lot of the core Labour voters.

Problem will be for him, winning swing constituencies seats, necessary for election victory, and the loss of Scotland to the SNP. But as far as UK Labour votes go, he seems to be pretty stable and reasonably popular.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

It was probably an honourable draw. The trouble is that isn't good enough for Labour and the Tories will be slightly happier of the two (though the blue rinse brigade will be having palpatations about the Scottish Conservative Leader)

As for Corbyn being popular, I disagree. Given his landslide victory last year, you would have expected that to translate into more seats in these elections. If anything it illustrates that a relatively gobby few can skew peoples perception of popularity or otherwise.

Voting for Cameroon or Corbyn is like trying to choose between going to the dentist or picking up dog s*** for a pass time.

Neither is appealing but one is marginally less a sh1tty pass time, marginally.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"