Local Elections 2022

[jdc]

BBC:



Graun:

graun.png (19.22 KiB) Viewed 1075 times

I think one is comparing to pre-election status quo and the other is comparing to the last time these seats contested or something? Looks like the Graun is also x1 council declaration behind.

[El Pollo Diablo]

As I understand it, there are new councils which have been created this time (eg Somerset), for which the guardian have estimates for the pre-election status (and therefore gains/losses), whereas the BBC have ignored the pre-election status (and therefore no gains/losses). The Guardian approach seems best to me.

[IvanV]

Another factor is that the BBC list is a partial list of the 8 largest parties, whereas the Graun adds everything up in "Other".

A notable "Other" not making the BBC's list is Aspire, which has won Tower Hamlets. It is the latest incarnation of Lutfur Rahman's party, at least one previous version was forcibly closed.

[El Pollo Diablo]

It's an odd situation:

Somerset
BBC: Con -34, Lab -1, LD +37.
Guardian: Con -3, Lab -2, LD +14.

Rossendale
BBC: Con -3, Lab +2, Ind +1
Guardian: Con -2, Lab +2, Ind 0

North Yorkshire
BBC: Con -21, Lab +8, LD +9
Guardian: Con -3, Lab +3, LD +7

I've managed to find three examples there in which the BBC are kinder to Labour than the Guardian. The Beeb list shows "Councillors elected in 2022" and "Councillors overall" (some councils only elect a third or a quarter at a time), but only the former contains relative increases/decreases. The main explainer from the Guardian is this:

The data on councillor numbers comes from PA Media. Because PA only reports on complete councils, the numbers for councillor change may differ from those reported by other sources who report each council seat as it comes in. In addition, there are differences in the point of comparison: PA calculates change based on the status of each seat just before the election, not on its status after the preceding election. Lastly, there are frequent changes in ward boundaries and the number of councillors per ward, to maintain equality of representation. This may mean that parties’ net seat changes in one particular council may not balance each other out.

f.cked if I know what's going on.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Comparing the As and Bs on the two websites, these are the changes listed:

Code: Select all

			BBC			Guardian		
Total 			-35	1	14	-43	18	10
			Con	Lab	LD	Con	Lab	LD
Adur			-2	1		-3	2	
Amber Valley		2	-4		2	-4	
Barking & Dagenham		0			0	
Barnet			-12	12		-14	18	-3
Barnsley		1	-3	2	1	-3	2
Basildon		1	-1		0	0	
Basingstoke & Deane	-4	0	2	-4	0	2
Bexley			-1	1		0	3	
Birmingham		-3	-2	4	-6	1	4
Blackburn with Darwen	0	0	0	0	1	0
Bolton			1	0	0	1	2	0
Bradford		-2	-1	-1	-1	1	-1
Brent			2	-5	3	1	-8	2
Brentwood		-2	0	2	-2	0	2
Bromley			-12	2	5	-14	4	5
Broxbourne		0	0		0	0	
Burnley			0	0	0	-1	0	0
Bury			-4	1	-3	-3	1	-3

[Gfamily]

493 losses and 484 gains, needs further analysis.

I read that one candidate won their seat and also won a mayoralty election, (meaning a byelection) so they don't count as a gain, but doesn't explain the other 8.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Taking Barnet council as an example, in 2018 it elected the following:

Con: 38 (+6)
Lab: 25 (-5)
LD: 0 (-1)

There were two by-elections between then and last week, which led to a gain for Con from Lab, and a Con hold. However, there were boundary and other changes: one councillor defected from Labour to the Lib Dems, and one from the Tories to the Lib Dems. I assume, given the numbers, that a second Tory councillor defected to LD, but Wikipedia doesn't mention this. Lastly, one Tory councillor changed to Independent in May last year. On that basis, then, that the make-up before the elections last week was this:

Con: 36 (+1, -3)
Lab: 23 (-2)
LD: 3 (+3)
Ind: 1 (+1)

In the 2022 election, the outcome was this:

Con: 22 (-14)
Lab: 41 (+18)
LD: 0 (-3)
Ind: 0 (-1)

On the absolute numbers, the BBC and Guardian thankfully agree. The Guardian's numbers accord with these figures, but there were boundary changes implemented before the election, which presumably is what the BBC numbers are based on. On that basis, one can only assume that with the boundary changes, the BBC assumed the council make-up pre-election would be Con 34, Lab 29, but I can't find anywhere which confirms that.

So. The Guardian don't seem to include boundary change forecasts but do include changes to council make-up between 2018 and 2022. The BBC do seem to include boundary change forecasts, and f.ck knows about the between-times. I'll let you all argue about the rights and wrongs of this, but for me the Guardian's approach feels like the right one.

[EACLucifer]

Another factor is that the BBC list is a partial list of the 8 largest parties, whereas the Graun adds everything up in "Other".

A notable "Other" not making the BBC's list is Aspire, which has won Tower Hamlets. It is the latest incarnation of Lutfur Rahman's party, at least one previous version was forcibly closed.

That corrupt bastard getting elected again is less than cheering news.

[IvanV]

Another factor is that the BBC list is a partial list of the 8 largest parties, whereas the Graun adds everything up in "Other".

A notable "Other" not making the BBC's list is Aspire, which has won Tower Hamlets. It is the latest incarnation of Lutfur Rahman's party, at least one previous version was forcibly closed.

That corrupt bastard getting elected again is less than cheering news.

I think it is factors beyond (financial) corruption that worry me more. It's more that it's a party explicitly appealing to particular ethnic groups, and playing particular unpleasant populist games around that point. That and their willingness to corrupt the vote itself. It has a lot in common with Trumpism.

There's plenty of corruption in inner London local government. As Croydon and various shire counties show, it's an issue across the political and social spectrum. But inner London seems to be have it particularly badly.

[EACLucifer]

Another factor is that the BBC list is a partial list of the 8 largest parties, whereas the Graun adds everything up in "Other".

A notable "Other" not making the BBC's list is Aspire, which has won Tower Hamlets. It is the latest incarnation of Lutfur Rahman's party, at least one previous version was forcibly closed.

That corrupt bastard getting elected again is less than cheering news.

I think it is factors beyond (financial) corruption that worry me more. It's more that it's a party explicitly appealing to particular ethnic groups, and playing particular unpleasant populist games around that point. That and their willingness to corrupt the vote itself. It has a lot in common with Trumpism.

There's plenty of corruption in inner London local government. As Croydon and various shire counties show, it's an issue across the political and social spectrum. But inner London seems to be have it particularly badly.

If I were an Ahmadi living in London, I'd be really worried about anyone associated with the East London Mosque having any political power.

[IvanV]

If I were an Ahmadi living in London, I'd be really worried about anyone associated with the East London Mosque having any political power.

Yes, exactly that kind of thing.

[IvanV]

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, the DUP are refusing to cooperate, so preventing the new SF first minister taking office. Now this particular boycott began in Feb, before the election, and is about the NI Protocol. But it seems a particularly futile boycott, as they are complaining about something that can't be fixed unilaterally either by the NIA nor even by Westminster, even with the best will from all parties within the UK. There have been several boycotts by both sides, adding up to about 1/3 of the time the assembly has been in existence. But to immediately refuse to cooperate at that first moment, after 24 years of unionist ascendancy in the assembly, at the first moment other side get the first minister, is worrying. It might start to look worrying like only accepting the institution so long as they control it.

[Gfamily]

... but the daughter won by 1 vote, but it was a very close 3-way split
C 399
L 398
G 372

It turns out it was an exact tie - so was decided by the returning officer drawing a name out of a bag.

A local paper reported her views "the Council Tax keeps going up but we don't get anything from it" - maybe she should consider that the council's allocation from Central Government has been cut from £83m in 2010 to £58m in 2021 (and that includes a £5m special grant). Under her bl..dy party's rule.

[Sciolus]

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, the DUP are refusing to cooperate, so preventing the new SF first minister taking office. Now this particular boycott began in Feb, before the election, and is about the NI Protocol. But it seems a particularly futile boycott, as they are complaining about something that can't be fixed unilaterally either by the NIA nor even by Westminster, even with the best will from all parties within the UK. There have been several boycotts by both sides, adding up to about 1/3 of the time the assembly has been in existence. But to immediately refuse to cooperate at that first moment, after 24 years of unionist ascendancy in the assembly, at the first moment other side get the first minister, is worrying. It might start to look worrying like only accepting the institution so long as they control it.

There is no difference in power between FM and DFM; only the titles are different. So this is more about appearances than actual power. (Which is quite enough reason for the DUP to throw a hissy fit.)

[Millennie Al]

I am going to begin with a harumph. This is the time at which the loyal foot soldiers of the Labour Party, such as myself, get called upon to distribute leaflets. There aren't any seats up for election in my area, so my services will not be called on, and I am rather glad, because the leaflet to be distributed starts like this.

leaflet.jpg

The £2,620 claim is just annoying. It has been repeatedly pointed out that it is based on flawed assumptions. The party must be aware of this, but has decided neither to correct, nor to properly justify the claim. So it's hard to argue that they are making an honest mistake, and it is getting easier to argue that they are lying - in much the same way as the £350 million weekly payment claim made by Brexiteers was a lie.

You are quite right to be upset at that. Not only is the party lying by continuing to publish it once it has been pointed out to be false, but so are all the people who knowingly distribute it. It just shows the corrupting influence of politics that a party which has the facts on its side still resorts to lies. That's the sort of thing that makes voters say that they're all alike so it doesn't matter who you vote for.

[snoozeofreason]

I think that a political calculation gets made that there will not be much push back against misleading statistics, and/or that anyone who does push back against them will regret it. The tories are unlikely to complain about the £2,620 claim because doing so would start an argument about whether voters will be £2,620 worse off under their government, or "only", say, £1,000 worse off. That's an argument they don't really want to have.

There are unlikely to be many Labour voices raised against the claim either, because people find it easy to come up with excuses for misleading statistics when those statistics fit into their world view. That leaves just a handful of nerds who think it's important to be as accurate as you can, particularly about statistics that you feel inclined to believe (and that where a figure can't be accurate, you have to make that clear when it is introduced, rather than falling back on such qualifications when the figure is questioned).

[jdc]

I've just noticed there were a couple of by-elections on the 12th, btw. Two more Conservative losses (to IND & LAB).

[jimbob]

I've just noticed there were a couple of by-elections on the 12th, btw. Two more Conservative losses (to IND & LAB).

Any more details, or are you channelling LPM?

[monkey]

I've just noticed there were a couple of by-elections on the 12th, btw. Two more Conservative losses (to IND & LAB).

Any more details, or are you channelling LPM?

The Britain Elects twitter shares all the bye election results - clicky

Not sure how useful it is to keep track of them though.

[Grumble]

... but the daughter won by 1 vote, but it was a very close 3-way split
C 399
L 398
G 372

It turns out it was an exact tie - so was decided by the returning officer drawing a name out of a bag.

A local paper reported her views "the Council Tax keeps going up but we don't get anything from it" - maybe she should consider that the council's allocation from Central Government has been cut from £83m in 2010 to £58m in 2021 (and that includes a £5m special grant). Under her bl..dy party's rule.

And how many were turned away because of ID problems?

[Gfamily]

... but the daughter won by 1 vote, but it was a very close 3-way split
C 399
L 398
G 372

It turns out it was an exact tie - so was decided by the returning officer drawing a name out of a bag.

A local paper reported her views "the Council Tax keeps going up but we don't get anything from it" - maybe she should consider that the council's allocation from Central Government has been cut from £83m in 2010 to £58m in 2021 (and that includes a £5m special grant). Under her bl..dy party's rule.

And how many were turned away because of ID problems?

That was 2022, so probably none.