Local elections 2023: How to cut through the political spin as the results come in

Published

2 years ago

May 3, 2023

admin

There are three ways to judge how well the political parties do on election night.

First, by the number of council seats gained, secondly by the number of councils won and lost and thirdly by looking at vote shares – the proportion of people who vote for each of the main parties.

None of them will give you the full picture, however, as they battle in the early hours to give results the most positive gloss.

The fight has already begun in earnest – with parties’ claims and counterclaims about what to expect.

This is our guide to decoding what they will say.

In this Q&A, I asked Sky’s election analyst Professor Michael Thrasher how he will interpret the results.

Q: Labour say the Conservatives did disastrously in 2019, which is the last time this set of elections took place. They argue the Tories should be judged on whether they are gaining seats, not losing them. Are they right?

Professor Thrasher: “The Conservatives are still the largest party of local government. They’re still defending the most seats this time.

“Why they might lose seats is simply because where they are currently in the national polls is lower than where they were in 2019 in terms of the national equivalent vote.

“In 2019, the Conservatives and Labour each got 31% of the national vote share. And so if the Conservatives are now below 30% and Labour is above 40%, it stands to reason that there’s a large swing from Conservative to Labour since four years ago. And therefore, for that simple reason, the Conservatives will lose seats to its principle opposition at these local elections.

“So yes, they lost 1,300 seats in 2019, but they are in a position where they should lose seats if polling is taken into account because Labour is so much further ahead of them now than it was in 2019.”

Q: The Tories have latched upon your 1,000-seat loss scenario. Are there more realistic alternative scenarios that we should be looking at for them?

Professor Thrasher: “Well, I think Conservative losses are inevitable.

But I think if they can keep those losses down to around 500 to 700, they will feel that Labour isn’t really hurting them a great deal, and possibly also the Liberal Democrats, who they are quite fearful of in parts of southern England like Surrey, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire.

“[It would mean] they too are not breaking through and threatening Conservatives in the next general election.

So, I think if they can keep losses down below 500, they will probably believe that they’ve had a reasonably good night at this stage of the parliament, given the way in which the current opinion polls have them below 30%. They will take that, I suspect.”

Q: Labour is saying a good night for them would be then gaining 400 seats. How does that fit in the benchmarks that you’ve done?

Professor Thrasher: “Well, I think that’s a very modest claim and given two things. Number one is where Labour currently is in the polls – it’s at 43%.

So again, if you recall, in 2019, we were saying that Labour was on 31%. That’s an increase of 12 percentage points on the position four years ago, so they should be doing well, and we think far better than 400 gains.

“Really, that’s a very modest swing from the Conservatives to Labour since 2019. They should really be aiming much higher than that, given what they need to do to win the next general election.”

Q: Often, you hear Labour politicians making the argument that these are not elections happening in their heartlands. These local councils, often shire councils, are not traditional places where Labour has a strong vote – how much validity is there in that?

Professor Thrasher: “That really, if you like, misses the point about the whole exercise of using local elections to calculate a national vote share. Because we take all of this into account.

“The way in which we calculate the national equivalent estimate is simply to look at the change in vote share in wards that voted in 2019 and in 2023.

So, it takes into account where these places are because if a council didn’t have an election, in 2019, we won’t be comparing with that result. So, we’re only comparing wards that are like for like, across those four years.

And for that reason, it doesn’t really matter where the elections are, because we’re looking at changing vote share.”

Q: Labour is keen to avoid comparisons with the local elections in 1995. They say you can’t compare those two, is that fair?

Professor Thrasher: “I don’t think it is fair, quite frankly. The reason being is that if we think about the context of the next general election, Labour requires a swing greater than Tony Blair received in 1997, which in itself remains the postwar record.

“So, I think it’s reasonable to compare with 1995 simply because Labour in 2024 has to do better than Blair did in 1997.

“And then for that reason, if Labour in 2023 is doing much, much worse than Labour did in 1995, then it stands to reason that quite frankly, they’re not in a good position to win the next general election.”

Q: Is it fair to say that Labour traditionally underperform in local elections as compared to general elections?

Professor Thrasher: “It is the case, and our projection allowed for the fact that Labour does perform rather worse in actual local elections than its current national opinion poll rating suggests. So we’ve factored that into our equation.

“It allows for the fact that the Labour lead over the Conservatives in terms of the overall estimate of the national vote at these locations is not going to be as great as the gap that it has in terms of the national opinion polls.”

Q: The Conservatives say a six or seven-point gap behind the Labour party would be a good night – being less than the polls suggest. Is that a fair benchmark to use?

Professor Thrasher: “Well, if we think about the national equivalent vote share from last year, it was 35% for Labour and 33% for the Conservatives.

“So, if they are five points adrift, then they’ve done worse than they did last year.

“This doesn’t suggest the party is catching Labour up necessarily, but they will certainly avoid the situation as in 1995, where Labour was on 47%, and the Conservatives were at 25% – a huge gap between the two parties and where Labour went on to win a landslide.

“I think the Conservatives really need to be within touching distance of Labour, bearing in mind where we are in terms of the parliament and bearing in mind that a general election is probably sometime next year.

“There is a limited amount of time for the Conservatives to catch Labour up, and therefore, they really should be within touching distance of them, not a long way behind.”

Professor Thrasher and his colleague Professor Colin Rallings have drawn up this guide for how to judge the results of the main political parties:

Conservatives

1000+ losses: A bad night with a third of all seats defended lost. Tory MPs in marginal ‘red wall’ and southern seats will be worried
750 losses: A clear swing to Labour but rather less than opinion polls imply
500 losses: The party will try to write this off as “mid-term blues” and argue the gap with Labour can be caught before the general election
Fewer than 300 losses: Council seats regained from Independents as Labour and Lib Dems fail to prosper

Labour

700 gains+: This would be the best local election performance for at least a decade, putting the party on the path to becoming the largest party at Westminster in a general election, even if short of an outright majority
450 gains: Results little better than a year ago
250 gains: Disappointing in the context of the polls, suggesting limited success in winning back the ‘red wall’
Fewer than 150 gains: Effectively a step backwards for Sir Keir Starmer and his party

Liberal Democrats

150+ gains: Eating into Conservative territory and could put some marginal constituencies in play at the next election
50-100 gains: Comfortable enough in their own heartlands but only modest further progress
Fewer than 50 gains: Still struggling to pose a real threat to the Conservatives in the south

World

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

Published

10 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

While the politicians talk, so many people come from around the world to try to get across the Channel on small boats. But why?

Why make such a perilous crossing to try to get to a country that seems to be getting increasingly hostile to asylum seekers?

As the British and French leaders meet, with small boats at the forefront of their agenda, we came to northern France to get some answers.

It is not a new question, but it is peppered with fresh relevance.

Over the course of a morning spent around a migrant camp in Dunkirk, we meet migrants from Gaza, Iraq, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka and beyond.

Some are fearful, waving us away; some are happy to talk. Very few are comfortable to be filmed.

All but one man – who says he’s come to the wrong place and actually wants to claim asylum in Paris – are intent on reaching Britain.

They see the calm seas, feel the light winds – perfect conditions for small boat crossings.

John has come here from South Sudan. He tells me he’s now 18 years old. He left his war-torn home nation just before his 16th birthday. He feels that reaching Britain is his destiny.

“England is my dream country,” he says. “It has been my dream since I was at school. It’s the country that colonised us and when I get there, I will feel like I am home.

“In England, they can give me an opportunity to succeed or to do whatever I need to do in my life. I feel like I am an English child, who was born in Africa.”

He says he would like to make a career in England, either as a journalist or in human resources, and, like many others we meet, is at pains to insist he will work hard.

The boat crossing is waved away as little more than an inconvenience – a trifle compared with the previous hardships of his journey towards Britain.

We meet a group of men who have all travelled from Gaza, intent on starting new lives in Britain and then bringing their families over to join them.

One man, who left Gaza two years ago, tells me that his son has since been shot in the leg “but there is no hospital for him to go to”.

Next to him, a man called Abdullah says he entered Europe through Greece and stayed there for months on end, but was told the Greek authorities would never allow him to bring over his family.

Britain, he thinks, will be more accommodating. “Gaza is being destroyed – we need help,” he says.

A man from Eritrea tells us he is escaping a failing country and has friends in Britain – he plans to become a bicycle courier in either London or Manchester.

He can’t stay in France, he says, because he doesn’t speak French. The English language is presented as a huge draw for many of the people we talk to, just as it had been during similar conversations over the course of many years.

I ask many of these people why they don’t want to stay in France, or another safe European country.

Some repeat that they cannot speak the language and feel ostracised. Another says that he tried, and failed, to get a residency permit in both France and Belgium.

But this is also, clearly, a flawed survey. Last year, five times as many people sought asylum in France as in Britain.

And French critics have long insisted that Britain, a country without a European-style ID card system, makes itself attractive to migrants who can “disappear”.

A young man from Iraq, with absolutely perfect English, comes for a chat. He oozes confidence and a certain amount of mischief.

It has taken him only seven days to get from Iraq to Dunkirk; when I ask how he has made the trip so quickly, he shrugs. “Money talks”.

He looks around him. “Let me tell you – all of these people you see around you will be getting to Britain and the first job they get will be in the black market, so they won’t be paying any tax.

“Back in the day in Britain, they used to welcome immigrants very well, but these days I don’t think they want to, because there’s too many of them coming by boat. Every day it’s about seven or 800 people. That’s too many people.”

“But,” I ask, “if those people are a problem – then what makes you different? Aren’t you a problem too?”

He shakes his head emphatically. “I know that I’m a very good guy. And I won’t be a problem. I’ll only stay in Britain for a few years and then I’ll leave again.”

A man from Sri Lanka says he “will feel safe” when he gets to Britain; a tall, smiling man from Ethiopia echoes the sentiment: “We are not safe in our home country so we have come all this way,” he says. “We want to work, to be part of Britain.”

Emmanuel is another from South Sudan – thoughtful and eloquent. He left his country five years ago – “at the start of COVID” – and has not seen his children in all that time. His aim is to start a new life in Britain, and then to bring his family to join him.

He is a trained electrical engineer, but says he could also work as a lorry driver. He is adamant that Britain has a responsibility to the people of its former colony.

“The British came to my country – colonising, killing, raping,” he said. “And we didn’t complain. We let it happen.

“I am not the problem. I won’t fight anyone; I want to work. And if I break the laws – if any immigrant breaks the laws – then fine, deport them.

“I know it won’t be easy – some people won’t like me, some people will. But England is my dream.”

World

Trump applying ‘heavy pressure’ on Netanyahu to end war in Gaza

Published

19 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Trump applying 'heavy pressure' on Netanyahu to end war in Gaza

US President Donald Trump is putting “heavy” pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza, two sources close to the ceasefire negotiations have told Sky News.

One US source said: “The US pressure on Israel has begun, and tonight it will be heavy.”

The source, who is not authorised to speak publicly, was referring to the White House dinner on Monday night between Trump and Netanyahu.

A second Middle Eastern diplomatic source agreed that the American pressure on Israel would be intense.

Netanyahu arrived in Washington DC in the early hours of Monday morning and held meetings on Monday with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser.

The Israeli prime minister plans to be in Washington until Thursday with meetings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

Trump has made clear his desire to bring the Gaza conflict to an end.

However, he has never articulated how a lasting peace, which would satisfy both the Israelis and Palestinians, could be achieved.

His varying comments about ownership of Gaza, moving Palestinians out of the territory and permanent resettlement, have presented a confusing policy.

Situation for Palestinians worse than ever

Over the coming days, we will see the extent to which Trump demands that Netanyahu accepts the current Gaza ceasefire deal, even if it falls short of Israel’s war aims – the elimination of Hamas.

The strategic objective to permanently remove Hamas seems always to have been impossible. Hamas as an entity was the extreme consequence of the Israeli occupation.

The Palestinians’ challenge has not gone away, and the situation for Palestinians now is worse than it has ever been in Gaza and also the West Bank. It is not clear how Trump plans to square that circle.

Trump’s oft-repeated desire to “stop the killing” is sincere. Those close to him often emphasise this. He is also looking to cement his legacy as a peacemaker. He genuinely craves the Nobel Peace Prize.

In this context, the complexities of conflicts – in Ukraine or Gaza – are often of secondary importance to the president.

If Netanyahu can be persuaded to end the war, what would he need?

The hostages back – for sure. That would require agreement from Hamas. They would only agree to this if they have guarantees on Gaza’s future and their own future. More circles to square.

Was White House dinner a key moment?

The Monday night dinner could have been a key moment for the Middle East. Two powerful men in the Blue Room of the White House, deciding the direction of the region.

Will it be seen as the moment the region was remoulded? But to whose benefit?

Trump is a dealmaker with an eye on the prize. But Netanyahu is a political master; they don’t call him “the magician” for nothing.

Trump makes decisions instinctively. He can shift position quickly and often listens to the last person in the room. Right now – that person is Netanyahu.

Gaza is one part of a jigsaw of challenges, which could become opportunities.

Diplomatic normalisation between Israel and the Arab world is a prize for Trump and could genuinely secure him the Nobel Peace Prize.

But without the Gaza piece, the jigsaw is incomplete.

World

IDF presence in Gaza ‘only issue’ still to be resolved in push for Israel-Hamas ceasefire, Sky News understands

Published

19 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

IDF presence in Gaza 'only issue' still to be resolved in push for Israel-Hamas ceasefire, Sky News understands

Only one issue remains unresolved in the push to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, according to Sky sources.

Intense negotiations are taking place in Qatar in parallel with key talks in Washington between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Two sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations have told Sky News that disagreement between Israel and Hamas remains on the status and presence of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza.

The two sides have bridged significant differences on several other issues, including the process of delivering humanitarian aid and Hamas’s demand that the US guarantees to ensure Israel doesn’t unilaterally resume the war when the ceasefire expires in 60 days.

On the issue of humanitarian aid, Sky News understands that a third party that neither Hamas nor Israel has control over will be used in areas from which the IDF withdraws.

This means that the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – jointly run by an American organisation and Israel – will not be able to operate anywhere where the IDF is not deployed. It will limit GHF expansion plans.

It is believed the United Nations or other recognised humanitarian organisations will adopt a greater role.

On the issue of a US guarantee to prevent Israel restarting the war, Sky News understands that a message was passed to Hamas by Dr Bishara Bahbah, a Palestinian American who has emerged as a key back channel in the negotiations.

The message appears to have been enough to convince Hamas that President Trump will prevent Israel from restarting the conflict.

However, there is no sense from any of the developments over the course of the past day about what the future of Gaza looks like longer-term.

Final challenge is huge

The last remaining disagreement is, predictably, the trickiest to bridge.

Israel’s central war aim, beyond the return of the hostages, is the total elimination of Hamas as a military and political organisation. The withdrawal of the IDF, partial or total, could allow Hamas to regroup.

One way to overcome this would be to provide wider guarantees of clear deliverable pathways to a viable future for Palestinians.

But there is no sense from the negotiations of any longer-term commitments on this issue.

Two key blocks have been resolved over the past 24 hours but the final challenge is huge.

The conflict in Gaza erupted when Hamas attacked southern Israel in October 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Some 20 hostages are believed to remain alive in Gaza.

Israel has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians.