Bit of a shock, Both Labour and Tories lose seats in elections and the Lib Dems Gain seats

Voters punished the two main parties over Brexit as the Conservatives and Labour both suffered early losses in the English local council elections.

The Conservatives had been expecting a a tough night amid frustration at Theresa May's failure to take Britain out of the EU as planned.

But Labour also struggled, losing seats amid confusion among voters over the party's stance on Brexit.

In contrast the Liberal Democrats were on course for a strong performance, with predictions it could make as many as 500 gains, while the Greens and Ukip were also picking up seats.

By 3am, the Conservatives had lost 49 seats and Labour was down 29, while the Lib Dems were up 45, the Greens had gained 11 and Ukip four.

With some analysts predicting Tory overall loses of 800 seats or more, Brexit Minister James Cleverly said he would be "happy" if they could be held to 500.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/03/local-elections-2019-results-councils-tory-party-loss/

Guess this shows that people think the Tories and Labour are useless

Between these and the EU votes the Conservatives are facing humiliation.

Labour deserve to suffer too.

The surprising turn out for LDs, Greens and Independents could suggest a lot of support for Brexit opposing parties too. Though it could also just be a way of slapping the big two into action.

Eilzel wrote:Between these and the EU votes the Conservatives are facing humiliation.

Labour deserve to suffer too.

The surprising turn out for LDs, Greens and Independents could suggest a lot of support for Brexit opposing parties too. Though it could also just be a way of slapping the big two into action.

My attitude towards the two main parties now is "a plague on both your houses."

I voted for the independent candidate in my local council elections.

A bit of a shock??

Yeah if you live in a leftwing echo chamber.

Too bad farages Brexit party wasn't operational in time for this

They would have been the big winners

The greens probably enjoyed a surged from that stupid protest in london

Libdems have their usual rabble who vote for them and probably gained some from labour and tories becasue they are useless parties who have been exposed

smelly-bandit wrote:A bit of a shock??

Yeah if you live in a leftwing echo chamber.

Too bad farages Brexit party wasn't operational in time for this

They would have been the big winners

Well of course its a shock that the Libs won so many seats at the cost of the Tories and labour

The LIbs have been dead in the water since they got into bed with the Tories

Even more surprising is the amount of seats the greens gained

The green candidate got in here....first time ever.

Syl wrote:The green candidate got in here....first time ever.

Does that mean no more central heating for you guys???

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:The green candidate got in here....first time ever.

Does that mean no more central heating for you guys???

Baby steps Smelly....baby steps.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Does that mean no more central heating for you guys???

Baby steps Smelly....baby steps.

You better set it lower to offset my central heating which will be cranked all the way up

The planet thanks you for your sacrifice

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

Baby steps Smelly....baby steps.

You better set it lower to offset my central heating which will be cranked all the way up

The planet thanks you for your sacrifice

I'm sure your kids and grandkids wont thank you though.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You better set it lower to offset my central heating which will be cranked all the way up

The planet thanks you for your sacrifice

I'm sure your kids and grandkids wont thank you though.

Well apparently the planet is going to explode............. Because climate change, so that's the ungrateful children and grandchildren problem solved.

Don't faint, I voted Conservative.
It was a LOCAL, council election, and I used my head to make the massive distinction between local and national politics.
Our 2 local Conservative councillors are doing a great campaigning job  against a  development of a new 1200 house estate where there is a total lack of infrastructure, roads, schools, doctors, shops and hospitals.
I will vote Labour or Lib Dems in the European elections

Andy wrote:Don't faint, I voted Conservative.
It was a LOCAL, council election, and I used my head to make the massive distinction between local and national politics.
Our 2 local Conservative councillors are doing a great campaigning job  against a  development of a new 1200 house estate where there is a total lack of infrastructure, roads, schools, doctors, shops and hospitals.
I will vote Labour or Lib Dems in the European elections

Very fair of you that, Andy

I'm glad the Liberals have shown they aren't completely out in the wilderness yet. Might even have an opportunity to prove themselves credible once again - one day

Liberal vote is just a protest vote. At a General Election they'll be ignored !

nicko wrote:Liberal vote is just a protest vote.   At a General Election they'll be ignored !

A bit like UKIP and eventually this new 'Brexit Party' then

At least the Liberals have tasted power in the last decade. And with Labour and Conservative loathed by increasing numbers I think smaller parties will do much better in future GEs.

Andy wrote:Don't faint, I voted Conservative.
It was a LOCAL, council election, and I used my head to make the massive distinction between local and national politics.
Our 2 local Conservative councillors are doing a great campaigning job  against a  development of a new 1200 house estate where there is a total lack of infrastructure, roads, schools, doctors, shops and hospitals.
I will vote Labour or Lib Dems in the European elections

Crazy isn't it? I see that Uttlesford District Council has been taken over by a local residents group for much the same reason.

Whoever wins your next national election,  it looks more and more like Britain's next guvm'nt will again be a 'coalition'  to allow either side to govern  ?!?

Giving more influence to "horse trading" from the minor/'cross bench' parties..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Whoever wins your next national election,  it looks more and more like Britain's next guvm'nt will again be a 'coalition'  to allow either side to govern  ?!?

Giving more influence to "horse trading" from the minor/'cross bench' parties..

Some may not like it. They better get use to the idea

You might find Brexit does better than expected !

Andy wrote:Don't faint, I voted Conservative.
It was a LOCAL, council election, and I used my head to make the massive distinction between local and national politics.
Our 2 local Conservative councillors are doing a great campaigning job  against a  development of a new 1200 house estate where there is a total lack of infrastructure, roads, schools, doctors, shops and hospitals.
I will vote Labour or Lib Dems in the European elections

Tactical voting is 100% valid, kid.  Gotta box clever.
And local politics is different to the national one, correct.
You have a good heart, Andy, so you cannot do wrong in my eyes.

Wasn't it great to see the racist UKIP part getting honked. Batten's endorsement of Tommy Yaxley Lennon Robinson sure worked in their favour.

Andy wrote:Don't faint, I voted Conservative.
It was a LOCAL, council election, and I used my head to make the massive distinction between local and national politics.
Our 2 local Conservative councillors are doing a great campaigning job  against a  development of a new 1200 house estate where there is a total lack of infrastructure, roads, schools, doctors, shops and hospitals.
I will vote Labour or Lib Dems in the European elections

So you vote Tory in local election, because they are against the building of new homes that are needed for people in your area... but you vote labour in national elections and are pro EU/free movement/mass immigration etc, which is responsible for the shortage of housing, and the very cause of the plans to build all this new housing, that you are against the building of...!!!???


WTF!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Andy wrote:Don't faint, I voted Conservative.
It was a LOCAL, council election, and I used my head to make the massive distinction between local and national politics.
Our 2 local Conservative councillors are doing a great campaigning job  against a  development of a new 1200 house estate where there is a total lack of infrastructure, roads, schools, doctors, shops and hospitals.
I will vote Labour or Lib Dems in the European elections

So you vote Tory in local election, because they are against the building of new homes that are needed for people in your area... but you vote labour in national elections and are pro EU/free movement/mass immigration etc, which is responsible for the shortage of housing, and the very cause of the plans to build all this new housing, that you are against the building of...!!!???

WTF!!!???

More obfuscation and outright bullshit from poor clueless little Tommy...

The big problems with a lot of those new privately-funded developers housing estates/ 'sub-divisions' over there are pretty much the same as in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand  :

First off, they pander to the top half of the market  --  meaning no new housing for the bottom half,  where the great bulk of homelessness, housing unaffordabilty, and "mortgage stress" is to be found..

And secondly, like in Andy's example, many of these new housing estates are being set up as new 'satellite' suburbs,  with no transport, services or infrastructure being allowed for.

Once again Tommy shoots himself in the foot, more concerned with attacking his foes rather than looking at what they actually said..

Monkey brain yet again putting foot in mouth with no.local knowledge.
The proposed houses will NOT be affordable to locals.
They are NOT for people in the area.
They will be for London commuters and London  residents looking for a cheaper alternative.
There are insufficient roads.
There are too few schools.
Insufficient doctors in the area.
Hospital Is already in crisis.
No proposed shops.
Traffic is already gridlocked locally.
Wildlife is threatened.
The area cannot sustain another 5000 people, 2500 cars, 3000 children.
That is why EVERY party locally, including the elected. council, are voting it down.
The only person.to benefit would be the 'farmer'/landowner who lives 150 miles away.

I have nothing against new towns being built if they're proper towns with shops, doctors, leisure facilities, proper access, etc. I don't see the point of just building a load of new houses either in the middle of nowhere or pretty much joined on to an existing town.

Greenie from me, Raggs.
You 'get'  it as well.
The proposed 1200 houses would be built on the only green lung in the area, which is a designated area of outstanding natural beauty.

Barely 25 miles away, they are currently building a new town, Ebbsfleet Garden City, which is going to be 28000 houses, an international.railway station and all the shops ,etc that a new town requires.
When completed, it will be magnificent.

https://ebbsfleetdc.org.uk

Andy wrote:Monkey brain yet again putting foot in mouth with no.local knowledge.
The proposed houses will NOT be affordable to locals.
They are NOT for people in the area.
They will be for London commuters and London  residents looking for a cheaper alternative.
There are insufficient roads.
There are too few schools.
Insufficient doctors in the area.
Hospital Is already in crisis.
No proposed shops.
Traffic is already gridlocked locally.
Wildlife is threatened.
The area cannot sustain another 5000 people, 2500 cars, 3000 children.
That is why EVERY party locally, including the elected. council, are voting it down.
The only person.to benefit would be the 'farmer'/landowner who lives 150 miles away.

London is full of foreigners through the mass immigration that you support... which is why housing is so expensive in London...

Tommy Monk wrote:London is full of foreigners through the mass immigration that you support... which is why housing is so expensive in London...

Nonsense. New York and San Francisco are more expensive, and they're not presently immigrant-loaded.

The most expensive, and least affordable, residential real estate in the world, for 2018 was listed as

1. Hong Kong
2. Sydney
3. Vancouver
4. Auckland

Ahead of New York, LA, San Francisco...
While Shanghai and Moscow are also in there with London..

If Tommy's frequent bulldust complaints about imagined "immigration" problems had any credence, than London, Paris and Berlin would have topped the list !

wolf wrote:Ahead of New York, LA, San Francisco...
While Shanghai and Moscow are also in there with London..

Among those you mention, wolf, I can only speak to New York, LA, San Francisco...all places I have lived. New York and LA, I understand. Manhattan is the product of the Otis Elevator Co. Going vertical packed a lot more people in.

LA...there's no excuse for. It is so spread out...and there's plenty of room still to grow. Not only is the LA basin not filled, but there is still room in the west Valley and in the high desert country to the east.

But SF is land-locked, on a peninsula, and is getting pretty dense. They are starting to go vertical like Manhattan, but that's iffy in earthquake country.

There's an interesting item floating around on YouTube on why real estate prices are so high in Auckland...

One of the factors is that Auckland is a coastal city, with around half the city's municipal area being water,  allied with a high demand from people wanting to live and work within the city limits..

Other major cities with similar conditions include Sydney, Melbourne, Vancouver, Seattle, Hong Kong/Macau..

And San Francisco.