Can someone explain why local council election results are considered some sort of indictment of the national party leaders? Are Miliband, Clegg, Cameron also leaders of the local council variations of their respective parties?

I know next to nothing about local councils and how they work - but aren't they basically just the equivalent of municipal elections here in Canada? We don't use parties at the municipal level in Canada, so the closest comparison i'd have here would be provincial elections, and no one would ever consider the success or failure of, say the New Brunswick NDP party as a reflection of the federal NDP party. They're separate entities that campaign on different platforms - one geared to federal issues, the other addressing provincial issues.

I just find it really bizarre that losing council seats would somehow be seen as a measure of success or failure of the national leaders. I mean, do council candidates campaign on the national party's manifesto or something? It's just rather confusing.

What 'Drew said really.

People tend to still support one party irrelevant of whether it's local or national. And unless you're a hardcore constant supporter of that party then you'll vote based on your current opinion of the performance of the parties.

So currently any floating voters that voted LibDem or Con during the General Election will probably decide they're shit now and vote for another party.

I voted LibDem at the General last year for various reasons but I went back to voting Labour this time in the locals and will most likely vote Labour in anything over the next few years.

Holy crap this is one helluva yellow map :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/constituency/html/scotland.stm

The SNP have a majority at 65 seats, and there's still 3 regional votes to be declared.

So far I think the Lib Dems have got a massive 4 seats, and Labour 29. This is going to be an interesting parliament.

That's hilarious. If only we had some kind of voting system that allowed people who voted for the other parties to still have some say.

Oh fucking wait.

1. Lib Dems have taken a lot of unwarranted flack, they are the Tory Shield.

2. Motion would have passed if Brown didnt decline a coalition.

3. AV is insignificant, Proportinal Representation was what should have been fought for. Tories (and Labour) know PR would reduce their numbers in parliament. No longer would Tories and Labour rely on their minority vote (30-38%) to gain power via tactical voting

4. If AV is so bad, why are internal party votes follow AV?

5. Seeing a voting reform referendum in our lifetime is extremely unlikely, well done Clegg.

6. Cameron has pretty much secured a second term in office. Lib deems returned to 1980s political strength, Labour scapegoat for debt will take a while to shake off (Not all their fault, but definitely a significant contributing factor)