The 2006 local elections represent a clear and embarrassing defeat for Labour. The party was relegated to third place in terms of the estimated national equivalent vote share, with only 26 per cent of the vote. It made a net loss of more than 300 seats, and controls 18-fewer councils than it did before the elections. While this was not, as some had predicted beforehand, Labour’s worst-ever local election performance – in fact, the 26 per cent share was the same as in 2004 – it was a very poor one.
Conversely, it was certainly a triumph for the Conservatives, and for their new leader David Cameron, facing his first national test at the ballot box. The party increased the number of councils they control by 11, made a net gain of 300 seats and, perhaps more importantly, reached the psychologically significant threshold of 40 per cent of the vote for only the second time since 1982. (The last occasion was in 1992, in the immediate after-glow of John Major’s unexpected general election victory.)
Perhaps more significant, they seem to have re-established themselves throughout much of England as the default alternative to Labour. Although some way short of the support they would probably need to win a majority at a general election, it is unquestionably a result with which they have reason to be pleased and, even discounting the usual spin and playing down of their hopes, probably somewhat exceeded their expectations.
For the Lib Dems, however, the results were certainly a disappointment. They remain more popular at local than national level, it is true, outperforming their opinion poll ratings by several points to score 27 per cent, but they failed to translate that into further gains of councils or councillors despite Labour’s collapse. The loss of control in the iconic London borough of Islington in particular will have come as a real blow. After the euphoria of the Dunfermline by-election, this is a substantial comedown; their new leader Sir Menzies Campbell now has some hard thinking to do.
Of course, some at least of the reasons for the depth of Labour’s defeat are easy to identify. The controversy over Charles Clarke’s handling of the release of foreign prisoners who should have been considered for deportation, the revelation of John Prescott’s affair with a civil servant, and Patricia Hewitt’s controversial speeches to two health service union conferences all unfolded in the last few days before the poll. In these circumstances, avoiding complete meltdown was arguably an achievement in itself. An election fought in such a context may be a totally unreliable indicator of the longer-term state of public opinion. This assumes, of course, that the government is able to quickly resume a more even keel, so that this period of public relations disaster proves only an uncharacteristic exception.
Even without these events, Labour defeat and Tory success were hardly unexpected. The Conservatives have been steadily progressing at local elections since 2001, not only in terms of vote share, which has been higher at each successive election, but in seats held and councils controlled. After the 2004 elections they had passed 8,000 councillors for the first time since 1992, and had a clear lead in councillors over Labour for the first time since the 1980s; the gap has been further widened in 2006. Similarly, each election has added more blue to the map of council control, with a total net increase of well-over 60.
Nor can there be any doubting the voters’ level of disillusionment with the government. In the monthly Ipsos MORI political monitor, conducted just before the local elections and published on election day, just 22 per cent of the public said that they were satisfied with the way that the government is running the country – the lowest ever figure for this government – and 68 per cent were dissatisfied. This figure has been steadily mounting: a few weeks after the 2005 general election, 52 per cent of the public said they were dissatisfied; in August it was 54 per cent; by November 57 per cent; then 60 per cent in January and February 2006; and 65 per cent in March.
Yet, allowing that this is indeed a real defeat for Labour and the embarrassments of the final few days before polling can account for only a small part of its depth, we should be wary of reading too much into it as a straw in the wind. After all, the party recovered from a 26 per cent share in the 2004 local elections to win a third term, with a share of the vote that was 10 points higher a year later. For that matter, Labour’s 2001 general election victory, with 41 per cent of the vote, was an 11-point improvement on the 29 per cent achieved in the disappointing local elections of 2000.
In fact, every single Labour local election share during the Blair government has been lower than the party’s general election share at the subsequent general election; and every single Tory local election share over the same period has been higher than any of their three general election shares since 1997. Little surprise – governments always under-perform in local elections, and this is particularly true of Labour, which is more disadvantaged by the invariably low turnouts.
Furthermore, although the Tory performance is moving in the right direction, the pattern of their resurgence is far from ideal for them. While they made substantial gains in London – where they have been under-performing over recent years – they made no inroads in the north of England; areas where they held both council and parliamentary seats when they were winning Commons’ majorities in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The local elections of 1968 have been much mentioned recently as a previous Labour wipeout and precursor to general election defeat, and it is interesting to compare results then and now. In 1968, the Tories took control of Sheffield, and already had majorities in Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle; today they total just two councillors across those four cities (both in Sheffield). But they are weaker in London too: in 1968, the Tories won 27 of the 32 London boroughs and more than 1,400 council seats there; in 2006, their much-vaunted victory encompassed control of only 14 of the boroughs and fewer than 800 seats. So maybe the Tories are coming – but they still have a long way to go.
Nevertheless, even if Labour’s local election defeat should be discounted, or used with caution as a political thermometer, it must not be forgotten that it will have more direct effects. Such events have a huge effect on party morale on both sides, and electoral successes have a momentum of their own in boosting party support. Indeed, the first opinion polls to be conducted after the local elections are showing precisely such a surge for the Tories. This in turn gives fuel to a hostile media who will see encouragement to their questioning of the government. In the longer term, fewer Labour councils means a harder task for government whenever its policies need co-operation from local authorities, and more demoralised local Labour parties may mean fewer or less enthusiastic campaigners and canvassers available at future elections. It would be very easy to fall into a spiral of failure that steadily deepens until defeat at the next general election is inevitable.
But things are by no means yet that bad. The next few months may be critical in deciding whether Labour can hope for a fourth term, or even retain sufficient authority to achieve anything useful in its third one.