2012 Councillor elections, was it really that bad?




A bit delayed in posting this, but better late than never.

"A boost for labour" proclaimed the Guardian, "British voters give Cameron a thrashing" rattled the Sunday Morning Herald and the BBC's political correspondent bellowed that the results secured the future of Red Ed as the Labour party leader, but just how good are the results?

No doubt they won councillors, but that was expected; a coalition Government making difficult cuts, a cabinet that is perceived as out of touch, a budget that was reported to favour the rich over the poor and, not to mention, mid term elections of which the ruling party (or parties) always lose.

If we compare this to 1997, two years into the Labour Government, they lost 1,150 councillors. That makes Labours 823 not as impressive, in-fact the Conservatives are still up by around 3% if you compare the number of Councillors in 1997 to today. A thrashing, in my opinion, would be a % gain to Labour.

Either way, the fact is the Conservatives still have considerately more councillors than Labour nationally is the point I'm trying (click on the image for an interactive image);


There is no doubt the Conservatives need to learn from the local elections, mainly that they are guilty of having policies vital to the nation’s survival, but being unable to explain them properly.

You can find the data here; richardallen.co.uk/data

Show Comments