How bad is Labour's bad result?
Labour has adopted a policy of extreme candour tonight - admitting that tonight's results have been bad. On the other hand, they say it is not a meltdown - pointing out, fairly, that this result is bad but only as bad as it was in 2004 when they came third with 26% of the vote.
The key political question is how they respond to it. Do they say "we've been here before and bounced back so we can do it again"? That is clearly Tony Blair's strategy - hence his reshuffle which will begin in a few hours.
Or, do they say that something more fundamental has to change - the style, the policies and, yes, possibly the leader himself as a number of Labour backbenchers have already said.
All say that they should listen to the electorate - the problem is they don't agree about what the electorate's saying.
I'm 
Comments
Mr Robinson,
Seeing and hearing you laughing like a schoolboy during the Nick Griffin interview made me feel sick. I have been up all night watching the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú election broadcast and when Nick Griffin came on I was interested in what he's point of view was, especially as the British National Party have gained some seats. Instead I had to witness you laughing like a fool during the interview, and then when Mr Griffin's interview had come to an end all of you there in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú studio, including Mr Dimbleby, sat around bad mouthing Mr Griffin after he was no longer in a position to reply. You all act like a bunch of fish wives, sitting in a circle spreading half truths after the person you are talking about has left the room.
You may not agree with Mr Griffin, after all you are all very well off with your big Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú pay packets [which I am contributing to] but take it from me living in a working class area of London on a working class wage is no laughing matter.
I agree with what Mr Griffin and his party are saying and I am interested in his point of view. I think, Mr Robinson, you should remember that you are working for a public broadcaster and you are there to report on what our politicians have to say, and not to embarrass yourself by thinking that your point of view is more relevant to the voting public.
As for you, Mr Dimbleby, I understand your Father was well respected in broadcasting for many years. I wonder how you will be remembered for your spineless, biased reporting of a legitimate political party, and your pompous insulting behaviour to the many thousands of voters of the British National Party.
Nick - after a long (and at one time, dark!) night I must say how much your blog has added to the enjoyment of watching the local election 2006 programme. Many thanks!
Simply put, Labour should reflect on whats happened as a whole.
At the same time Tony Blair should change and be more firm with his minister's.
Clarke offered his resignation, to which he should of accepted, (otherwise tonight could of been better for labour).
What happened is unacceptable, and shows that his "style" does not work!
Today should be an interesting day, who stays, who goes. Great entertainment through the night, glad I stayed up for it. If anything has come out of tonight it is that Nick Griffin has been shown in his true colours and I believe along with the panel that the interview should be shown on prime time just to display to individuals that what you believe you are voting for isnt always what it seems......
Have Labour spun a good line here? The results do not appear as bad as alot of political commentators and Labour people were predicting.
nick.........
the new labour brand has been silently (and not so silently) destroying itself in london since TB tried to single handedly destroy Ken Livingstones london mayor bid.
New Labour hasn't listend to it's core supporters, those of us to the left of Ken Clarke or Michael Hesseltine and has goverened from the Right.
New LAbour has to start listening to those who used to be the core, people on the left of the spectrum and those concerened with civil liberties.
I voted the local labour slate this time in Wood Green, but voted Lib Dem nationally.
The New Labour brand is dead, there is no question about that - the only question remaining (because we know blair is going) is whether the entire Labour party/Labour Movement is going to be destroyed trying to extracate the "New".
Al
Hi Nick,
The Conservatives are back (in the south anyway) - that is the big story from last night. What concerns me though, are the gains by the BNP - it goes to show the dangerous folly of the liberal left over immigration and asylum. Something fundamental has to change on immigration and asylum policy, starting with a repeal of the Human Rights Act.
After every previous 'setback' and 'mixed result', a 'chastened' Mr Blair has always responded to the voters in the same way: 'This time I will listen. Promise.' He never has.
Neither Mr Blair's credibility nor his authority will be restored by a Government re-shuffle. To quote Shakespeare: 'This physic but prolongs thy sickly days.'
The threat from the left is something new about this election that has hardly been mentioned. Respect won 11 seats, 9 in Tower Hamlets. Yet the BNP get national coverage for winning 12 seats!
As far as Labour supporters (and activists) are concerned a left challenge is far more significant. It indicates that New Labour can no longer take their own support for granted in the way they have done in the past.
Also some of the other results for Respect indicate that in some areas it is becoming the main challenger to Labour. Surely this development - which is certainly significant in the Labour Movement - is worth some sort of coverage.
Listen to the electorate? Political parties only hear what suits them and can be spun into something the leadership wants to hear. Remember the last time that a PM put himself in front of a panel of voters he couldn't dismiss or duck what they were saying? He was mauled.
This for me is the root cause of the disaffection many have with politics and politicians generally. It doesn't seem to matter what we say it seems impossible to get any of the major parties to focus on effective central administration and delivery of core national infrastructure on time, on cost and to the quality standards originally set. This is closely related to our rigged electoral system which allows minority parties, say one with only 36% of the vote, in a position to dictate to the 64% who didn't vote for them. That of course is just another example of the voice of the electorate which the current vested interests don't want to hear.
Politicians listen? Only to their own self interest!
Nick,
One of the fundamentals of senior management is to surround yourself with good, quality management responsible to you. You then have to gain their respect and support. Tony Blair would appear to have done this the wrong way around. Lately we have had Blunkett, Jowell, Prescott, Hewitt and Clark. Good ministers? He has to go, but, with the situation as it is can Brown take over? Prospective ministers, for him, are in the Blair camp. I feel we are going to need a clean sweep, with another name in the frame at No.10.
You say that Labour needs to listen to the electorate. In recent weeks, whenever any independent body comments based on objective facts, the New Labour mantra is "we don't accept that view". I fear that their attitude to the views of the electorate is the same. How many people were opposed to Iraq, ID cards, police mergers, NHS reforms, education reforms, etc - yet how many of these people are listened to?
These are disastrous results for Gordon Brown. They’re not great results for Labour. But not bad enough to get rid of Blair here and now. So Brown will have to seethe and sulk for another extended period, knowing that his chances of occupying No 10 are increasingly dependent on a dour Chancellor with an insatiable appetite for tax persuading the electorate to adopt him in his own right. The same electorate which may have indicated last night that it will have had its fill anyway by 2009/10, after three terms.
Nick...
Haven't we been here before? I seem to remember Labour getting a bloody nose from the electorate at the last general election, and saying that they would 'listen to the people' and become more humble. The result? Some of the most draconian legislation since the war resulting in a significant erosion of civil liberties - with more in the pipeline. And here is that same Labour administration acknowledging another bloody nose, and saying that they must 'listen' to the people! On previous form, this is not a good sign for whatever freedoms we have left.
Sorry, I could not find my party on the ballot paper, you remember them, the old party that looked after the working mans objectives, did not lie, and were the voice of reason against conservative policies. They were called the Labour Party !
Is telling the truth now "extreme candour", Nick?
I now vote tactically at national level and for whoever is the best for our town at local level. It's very hard to be happy when the party I always supported before ceased to exist long ago and seems happy and content to have a war criminal as its leader.
I don't live in an area where local elections were taking place yesterday, and it's probably good for Labour that they weren't, as they would very likely have struggled in this corner of North Yorkshire.
I have to admit that the thought of a reshuffle fills me with a mix of wry amusement and bewilderment. At this stage I think many people will look at a reshuffle rather like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. The Prime Minsiter is beseiged from without and now looking under increasing pressure form within his own party; such a situation makes it hard to concentrate on the job in hand and meaningless reordering of his team is not going to change very much in that respect.
It also doesn't help that in some areas of the country he is, like Margaret Thatcher before him, becoming an electoral liability.
Dear Nick,
I am irritated at the way the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú website is headlining what happened last night. The banner headline is " "Labour suffers losses at the polls.
Whilst no one can argue that this is not a true statement, and it might not be a "disaster" ,it certainlly was a serious "bloody nose".
I never thought I would agree with Frank Dobson, but as he says, the re-shuffle is just a matter of reshuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic.
The New Labour project is dead, and are approachiing the moment that all "Caesar's" suffer, that "et tu brute" moment. Its not a question of if this will happen, its when..... and will it be left to the electorate or his own party.
Labour's response is typical. They'll find a fall guy or two, but the real blame is their failing policies. Ask ANY nurse just how well their NHS reforms are really working, or ANY teacher just how bad things REALLY are in schools. That's why you lost out Mr Blair. You don't see and you don't listen, and consequently your policies are blighted with the SADIM touch (in case you hadn't noticed it's like the MIDAS touch, except everything that you touch turns to something brown and smelly that isn't gold).
Dear Nick,
I am irritated at the way the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú website is headlining what happened last night. The banner headline is " "Labour suffers losses at the polls.
Whilst no one can argue that this is not a true statement, and it might not be a "disaster" ,it certainly was a serious "bloody nose".
I never thought I would agree with Frank Dobson, but as he says, the re-shuffle is just a matter of reshuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic.
The New Labour project is dead, and TB is approaching the moment that all "Caesar's" suffer, that "et tu brute" moment. Its not a question of if this will happen, its when..... and will it be left to the electorate or his own party.
From the perspective of a longtime Labour party member I would say (a) this is no worse thaa 2004 (from which we bounced back to win a geenral election and (b) by what stretch of the imagination does anyone think that Blair 'naming a date' will help anything for the party. At once it would be considered a resignation and defeat in all but name, he would lose all (not just a bit of his) authority. The press would treat it entirely as their victory, a victory against the shattered Labour Party. And Brown would face a hideously long slog up to the next election. All of this talk of Blair 'naming a day' is merely flim flam from his enemies and those who know he is still the Labour Party's key weapon.
The fact is Blair is still hugely popular in the party and if the hardcore try to mobilise a challenge against him they will be obliterated.
As to the transition, if Labour is to have any hope of winning next time it should be delayed as long a possible (that is until about eight mnoths before the next general election) giving Brown the key factor of novelty as he goes into the election. That was how John Major won.
Nick - well done on your blog, and well done on your part last night. I've got to be honest, though, that really wasn't great coverage by some of the other team. Jeremy seemed incredibly anti-Conservative biased with the data. David wasn't at his best. And I like Tony King, but he looked a bit tired too. And having heard him go on and on about the magic 40% (quite rightly) on previous nights, he didn't mention it - it was left to John Reid and the Conservatives. It was amusing that Reid stated the 40% rule early on, clearly thinking the Tories wouldn't do it, and they did.
So, yes, bad for Labour. Not meltdown, and Tony might limp on which will suit the Tories beautifully. The LibDems didn't do very well, but that's hardly surprising after what happened in the leadership race. The real story is just how well Cameron's Tories did. They really do look back now - and I wouldn't bet against them winning the next General Election from here.
Nick,
In Islington Labour gained 12 seats the Lib Dem’s lost 12 seats and the Conservatives lost their only seat on the Council. Can the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and the media remember that these are local elections and people are just as likely to be voting on issues such as having to pay to park your car outside your own home and other local issues rather than the culpability or not of Charles Clarke et al.
I think this time the "bounce factor" won't work. This time the local issues are the national issues, Police, NHS, Taxation. This time the electorate is wise enough not to fall for the "if in doubt, reshuffle" tactic. This time Labours "Goose/Chicken" is cooked.
Sorry Tony, but I for one am an ex-Labour voter who sat on my hands like so many others last night.
Whilst he remains in office I will also refrain from voting. I'm Labour through and through but this current leader does not represent me. He has had his day, as have many of his bungled policies.
I have no other party I would want to support so my only option was to withhold my vote.
Take the hint, Tony. Just like happened with Thatcher, it's time to go. Shame the Men in Grey Suits won't make the same appearance they did when the Tories finally did away with her.
How bad for Labour?
26% of a 36% turnout, that's what? Nine percent....
How bad is when only 9% of the electorate think you're worth voting for?
I don't think this is just 'bad' I think it's farcical. I think that at their best the Raving Monster Loonies used to do better than this didn't they?
I cannot believe that John Prescott
is walking around as if nothing as happened. His wife must be putting on a brave face.
How can a man who has openley taunted and poked fun at other political parties regarding sleaze stay in office.
It seems this affair was going on for a while and he has been an out and out hypocrite.
Some people say it is personal but it was not personal when he was at the dispatch box attacking the Tories for sleaze.
I have no respect for this man and he should go now.
He should have gone when he punched a man in public and on TV.
He does not deserve to hold such a high office.
Mr. Blair is letting the U.K. down by holding on to a man who has brought nothing but ridicule to the Goverment.
Mr. Blair should show some backbone and get rid NOW!
Yawn. Nick, how much longer do you expect to hold on to your job? You seem to believe your own stories. You live inside of the Westminster bubble. Try to get out once in a while. Smell the fresh air. Go for a walk. Listen to some music. These are local elections. Had this been a general election, the outcome would have been very different as you well know. Try not to let your self-appointed status as kingmaker go to your head.
It's 2pm and I've just returned from a tour of Chiswick where there is not a copy of The Evening Standard to be found. Working on the assumption that people lean towards avoiding buying the papers when a result in politics or sport they care passionately about has not gone their way (reading it is too painful!) then one can easily reach the assumption that Labours distastrous night is actualy being welcomed by the good people of Chiswick. Admittedly W4 isn't the most left-leaning postode but it's a alot emotionally nearer to Islington than true blue Kensington or Chelsea.
Could it be that the Conservative Partys slogan at the last election - "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?" - was considerably more insightful than it was given credit for? Could it be the Labour experiment has finaly been exposed as well-intentioned, but little better than a complete failure, kept afloat by a smiley man who we all once liked or at least didn't mind tolerating?
To quote:
"How bad for Labour?
26% of a 36% turnout, that's what? Nine percent....
How bad is when only 9% of the electorate think you're worth voting for?"
On that basis LD & Lab achieved 9% each.
The Tories achieved a mammoth 13%!!
Shows what you can do with statistics - come up with complete drivel!
With Labours problems regarding John Prescott and Charles Clarke and the Liberals leadership problems together with months of character assassination by the press it would have been surprising if the Tories had not made gains.This is not due to strong opposition in parliament
Nick,
As the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú were reporting poll analysis that said 'The Conservatives will drop 4% from their 2004 vote share, scoring only 33% of the vote and lose 75 seats' and 'Labour will gain 2% in vote share, but still lose 130 seats' [https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4889884.stm] only a month ago either that report is pants or Labour did really badly and the Tories did well.
To comment on a requote of a quote:
"How bad for Labour?
26% of a 36% turnout, that's what? Nine percent....
How bad is when only 9% of the electorate think you're worth voting for?"
On that basis LD & Lab achieved 9% each.
The Tories achieved a mammoth 13%!!
Shows what you can do with statistics - come up with complete drivel!
......but 13% is 44% higher than 9%
I know which figure that I would rather have!
Hi Nick,
Here's a one time bit of info for you,
Question politicians vigorously about deportations of foreign nationals, not so much about getting them out of the country, but, what measures are there to stop them comming back.
"Listen to the electorate" ?
Remember Patronising Patricia's Great debate on the NHS? Or Teflon Tony's Great debate on something or other? ... if you pre-select an audience, already in agreement with your views, you do stand a fair chance of reaching a consensus. And if you don't, it will be spun to be one....
It strikes me that, whatever your opinion of Jack Straw, however you view his actions and general abilities, he had a good grasp of the dynamics and the risks of the extraordinarily dangerous situation in the Middle East, particularly Iran. And again, whatever your view of the actions taken by the UK et al in that region, no intelligent observer would underestimate the complexity of the situation.
So to replace Straw with Beckett - again, no reflection on her ability or otherwise - at a point so crucial to our relationship with that region, simply because of politics within the cabinet - seems to me to be criminally negligent, and a clear demonstration of where the Prime Ministers priorities lie - with his own self-preservation, and not with the country.
Mr Blair shouldn't resign. Like Charles Clarke, he should be fired.
---Why aren't infants allowed to vote? Why do we only allow those 18 and over to vote? Because we require a minimum of maturity and knowledge from voters? Makes sense, but I think it should be taken further. There should be a knowledge test that one has to pass before being allowed to vote. If everyone who voted had to be able to find Ecuador and Latvia on a map and be able to name the capitols of Canada and Kenya, the BNP wouldn't have won a single seat in the recent local elections. No, it's not elitism, just logic.
They just ignore the public and then claim we have no interest in politics. We're so sick of it, that a large group of people have started holding public meetings across England. I'm travelling over a hundred miles tomorrow to attend one in Kirby Lonsdale, Cumbria, with the aim of seeing how it was organised and then organising the same in my own county.
The subject? An English Parliament. That's something the government doesn't want to hear, but hear it they will.