Politics in the UK > Municipal elections in the UK could be dramatic for Labour government

 

Britons head to polls in key test for ruling Labour government

By Paul Godfrey    

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his wife Victoria on Thursday morning as they arrived to cast their votes at a polling station in his north London constituency of Holborn and St. Pancras. Photo by Neil Hall/EPA

May 7 (UPI) -- Millions of Britons were headed to the polls on Thursday to vote in local, mayoral and parliamentary elections in England, Scotland and Wales in what is being seen as a 'mid-term' referendum on the leadership of Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Voters in Scotland and Wales are electing lawmakers to their parliaments while in England more than 5,000 seats across 136 local councils are up for grabs, including in all 32 of London's boroughs. Elections for half or a third of the seats are being held in another 73 local voting districts.

Six English municipalities, all but one of them in London, are electing new mayors.

Labour is expected to lose as many as 2,000 seats, mainly to new parties Reform UK and the Green Party, in an historic shift to a multi-party political system from a system dominated for the past century by Labour and the Conservative Party.

Support for both parties is down sharply with Labour polling on about 20%, compared with 35% at the last set of local elections in 2022, and the Conservatives on 18%, down from about 40%.

Labour's numbers are also sharply down from the time of the 2024 general election that brought the party to power in a landslide; the Conservatives much less so.

The worst case scenario for Labour sees it losing control of many of the 60 councils it is defending in the big cities, the party's political heartland.

The Conservatives, who are heavily represented in rural areas, are expected to fare a little better but could lose control of a handful of the 32 councils it runs and as many 1,000 seats overall.

That type of result with a general election only two years away would dramatically ramp up pressure on Starmer, potentially triggering an internal challenge to his leadership of the party and premiership.

Starmer is already under fire for his failure to deliver on his main pledges of his "Change" election manifesto to grow the economy, end the churn and chaos of previous Conservative administrations and tackle illegal immigration, along with his botched appointment of Peter Mandelson as British Ambassador to the United States.

Speculation was mounting that he could face a challenge from an Angela Rayner-Andy Burnham 'ticket' under which former deputy prime minister Rayner, would step in to deliver the party's manifesto before standing aside to let Manchester Mayor Burnham fight the next election, which is due to be held by July 2029 at the latest.

An aide to Rayner, who quit as deputy prime minister in September amid a scandal over underpayment of property taxes on a new home purchase, dismissed the rumors as absurd.

Labour veteran Burnham was blocked by the party from running in a by-election for a Manchester parliamentary seat in February to replace a Labour MP who was standing down. Burnham's request to contest the election was denied by an internal party committee headed by Starmer on grounds he needed to serve out his term as mayor.

Labour went on to lose with the Green Party, beating them into third place with a 4,000-seat majority, and 12 points clear of Reform UK.

In May 2025, a win by Reform UK in an election for the Runcorn and Helsby constituency in northwestern England, another "safe" Labour seat, prompted Reform leader Nigel Farage to declare that Britain's two-party system was "dead."

Read More

• British Deputy MP Angela Rayner resigns over tax scandal
• Greens push ruling Labour Party into 3rd place in key U.K. byelection
• Britain's Labor Party in landslide election win
• U.K. Reform Party leader: Two-party system is 'dead'

================================================================================================

Look-out Canada, Tomorrow's Going to be Different Than Today

Election Day in Canada (Democracy in action, or Trudeaumania 2.0)

National party leaders (today). Left to right: Stephen Harper, Conservative;
Elizabeth May, Green; Justin Trudeau, Liberal; Tom Mulcair, NDP

A marathon 11 week federal election campaign ended yesterday as Canadians vote for a new government today. 11 weeks is twice the normal duration for an election; Prime Minister Stephen Harper gambled that his two main opponents would shoot themselves in the foot somewhere along the way, however, both emerged with all toes still wiggling. Harper also thought he had an advantage because the Conservative election vault was much more full than those of his opponents. That 'advantage' hasn't really materialized in any noticeable form, nor has it resulted in tipping the polls.


Change (Doesn't matter if it's good or bad)

The theme for this election campaign has been 'change'. Both the Liberals and the NDP convinced Canadians that change was needed. They had the assistance in this endeavour of the CBC - Conservative Bashing Corporation - Canada's public broadcaster whose budget was frequently a victim of Conservative budget cuts. But it wasn't just the CBC who were tired of Harper, Canada's 2 other national TV networks also wearied of the distance Harper put between them and himself, making it difficult to get interviews or inside information. Harper deemed this necessary to control the message, but it certainly did not win him any friends in the national broadcasters.

There are, at least, a dozen other areas where Stephen Harper could be soundly and justifiably criticized, and perhaps twice that many. So 'change' would certainly be a good thing in the minds of most Canadians. The environment, indigenous missing women, smothering scientific research by government researchers, First Nations, etc., etc., are all areas where it would not be difficult to improve on Stephen Harper's record. And while these are all important issues, are they worth 'change' in other areas?


Canada survives 2 global downturns

Canada survived the 2008 economic crash better than any major economy. We were the envy of the G7 and received many accolades because of it. It may have been Stephen Harper's destiny that the crash in oil prices happened when it did. The resultant downturn in employment and investment in the oil fields threw Canada into a brief and very limited recession from which it is already emerging.

The Liberals and the NDP, however, blame Harper for every aspect of that downturn, as if he controlled global oil prices. They also blamed him for all the effects of the 2008 downturn caused completely by American recklessness in mortgage and banking areas. I thank God a Liberal or NDP government was not in control for either of those downturns or this country would have been bankrupt long ago.

So prudent financing, if it were to suffer change would become reckless spending resulting in increased taxes. Canadians pay fewer taxes than we have for many years, but that is also liable to 'change'. A Liberal government would leave us at the mercy of foreign whims and failures even more so than now.


Election results 3 possible scenarios (none of which are good)

The most likely scenario for election results is a minority Liberal government. The Liberals and the NDP are both left-leaning parties and should have little difficulty working together for a couple years. A Harper minority is also possible. That would be an interesting situation since all the other political parties are left-leaning, so it would be a great challenge for Harper to work with any of them. In that case, either another election would be called, or the Governor General may turn to one of the other leaders and ask him to try and form a government.


Trudeaumania 2.0 (God save us)

There is also the possibility of a Liberal majority government. In spite of polls have all three major parties in nearly a statistical dead-heat for most of the campaign, the Liberals and their leader, Justin Trudeau, have been surging in the past two weeks to move very clearly ahead of the others. The surge is almost completely based on the popularity of Trudeau. This, should it continue today, could be called Trudeaumania 2.0.

Being old enough to remember Trudeaumania 1.0, I have to tell you that this is very disconcerting. TM 1.0 was the wave that Justin's father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, rode to become Prime Minister, some 50 years ago. He was, almost certainly, Canada's first rock star. He became more popular than the Beatles. 


Keynesian lunacy (or loonacy)

Trudeau, the senior, however, was a disaster for Canada. His Keynesian economics has left Canada in a position where it may never be able to pay off the debt he incurred. Canada's national debt is nearly $613 billion dollars and increases by 2 million dollars per day. Why is it increasing if the budget has been balanced? Because we are paying $86 million per day in interest on the debt. That's $31 billion per year. What a spectacular waste of money, and Trudeau wants to increase that considerably over the next 3 years, by the end of which we will likely be paying $100 million per day in interest. What could we do with an extra $36.5 billion dollars in our yearly budget?

Trudeau, the junior, seems to have adopted his father's economic philosophy. Keynesian economics is basically spending the money you expect to make next year because of the growing economy. It's kind of like running out and buying a new truck on payments because you are expecting to get a raise. It's all good if the raise come through, but if it doesn't, you're in trouble. You could end up selling the truck at a loss because you can't afford the payments, and then have to make payment on a debt with no truck to show for it.


NEP (Father of the Reform Party)

Keynesian economics makes no provision for possible downturns in the economy. The raise has to come through or our debt just gets bigger and bigger. Trudeau, the senior, used this same idiotic logic when he sent Marc Lalonde, his right-hand man, to negotiate the National Energy Program with Alberta. The policy laid out how much Ottawa would get out of the Alberta oil revenues. The amount was set on an ever-increasing scale with no provision for a drop in oil prices. Astonishing stupidity! So when oil prices dropped, Ottawa was collecting most of the profits from Alberta oil. It was estimated that the program cost Alberta between 50 and 100 billion dollars in the 6 years that it ran.


Vote

So, go out and vote Canada. But please, vote with your head, not your heart. Selecting a Prime Minister is not a romantic adventure, nor is it an entry-level job. God bless, and help, Canada.