« Cripes! – Main – Radiohead, blogging »

By now, everyone knows what the headline figures are from this year's local elections: Labour lost 331 seats, the Tories gained 256. As a share of the vote, this was the result of 24% and 44% respectively. Three-party politics is a non-starter: with Brian Paddick in London and Nick Clegg, notwithstanding the Sheffield result (a direct result of this being Clegg's constituency), the Liberal Democrats are an irrelevance. Their only hope lies in a coalition — a likely prospect if Labour recovers by the time of a general election in 2010, and the Tories falter with the focus that will fall onto them.

In London, Boris (or BoJo) is king: 1,168,738 votes to Livingstone's 1,028,966. Ken was the "Zone 1 Mayor", for it was the outer boroughs and suburbs that won it for Boris. One under-reported gain was the number of Assembly members for Labour: up one, whilst the Tories lost one.

In no particular order, here are a number of issues and considerations for Labour supporters:

— David Cameron is now firmly tied to Boris Johnson. Whether or not that is a good thing for the Conservatives I care little, but surely is presents an opportunity for Labour? Johnson has been on a leash for the duration of the Mayoral campaign; in four years, and especially in the next two, there will be gaffes.

— Cause and effect I: Mayor Johnson's key pledges include reducing crime. Labour has overseen a decrease in crime overall through its various initiative. If crime drops in London, will that be a direct result of Boris's initiatives? Labour should ensure it isn't. (Incidentally, all Labour supporters should report every crime they see... that will put a dent in Boris's figures.)

— Cause and effect II: Ken lost; Boris won: Obvious, but we must remember that it wasn't just Boris that won this. Ken lost it. Three newspapers could barely support him ("Ken with the caveats" was how they put it), and there were always a number of issues with Ken's previous periods in office which would influence the contest.— Fairness and non-discrimination: One of the key battlegrounds in politics over the coming years will be around fairness, equality and non-discriminatory treatment, and the extent to which public reform achieves fair and equal treatment for all. The Routemaster bus was exactly an example of an issue that was about fairness — of access for disabled bus passengers. Boris has pledged to abandon (accessible) bendy buses and introduce environmentally-friendly Routemasters. But that misses the point about fairness and access, at the cost of symbolism, and should be highlighted.

— The Evening Standard: Is a poisonous, but ultimately influential vessel. It is owned by the same people who publish both the Metro (which influences many younger, less party-minded individuals) and the Daily Mail. That link — Standard–Metro–Daily Mail — needs to be pushed by Labour supporters,, especially amongst younger voters.

— Boris: is Boris a typical Tory? Yes and no. The more important question is whether or not he is typical of the Tory party David Cameron is creating.

— Letter to the Guardian:

[The local elections were] proof that David Cameron's background in public relations is paying off, but unless he reveals some policies, he will be found out. He cannot keep repeating words like "dithering", "weak", "incompetent" as a mantra without attracting himself the epithets "shallow", "without substance" [and] "vacuous".

—Telling environmental comment, which will dent the Tory / green push:

Internal polliing in London found Ken Livingstones green policies, such as new charges for gas-guzzling cars, alienated older voters, while the environment was at best a low priority for others, suggesting that, as families' budgets shrink, so does their willingness to pay to save the planet.

— National from local: The traditional caveats that local elections are best a tenuous proxy for a general election etc. still hold. But these mid-terms came on the back of a general feeling that Brown was not leading a good Labour government. Thus, many are working on the assumption that Labour will lose the 2010 general election. Working on that assumption, what should Labour do? It should stop tinkering and be brave. This bravery would include a programme over the next 18 months which could (a) entrench the past 11 years of Labour rule and (b) do something radical. The latter includes: erasing child poverty, reform of the Lords, legislating for independent living, social care reform, introduce higher taxes for the well-paid, and perhaps introduce proportional representation. Who knows what the public might make of this; who knows what the Tories would make of it. But it would be brave, and it would be the right thing to do.

— The Observer agrees:

[Gordon Brown] might devote himself to one or two core policy areas. The tricky areas of poverty, anti-social behaviour and welfare reform, terrain where the Tories are least convincing, is an obvious candidate.

Labour should take that advice: it is at its best when it is boldest.

Update: Ken Livingstone gives his post-election analysis, which tallies with much of the above.

Tags — Politics