I don’t need to remind our readers to vote today. But I thought you might like to know when the results are likely to be declared.
It is a rag bag of an election with 10 Metro mayors (including the Mayor of London) on the ballot paper along with Police and Crime Commissioners, London Assembly members and local councillors where they are elected by thirds. On top of that there is a Westminster by-election in Blackpool South.
Most of the counts are taking place on Friday – and Saturday as well in the case of London, amongst others.
Overnight we can expect results from a number of local councils. We should keep an eye out for Portsmouth, where we run a minority administration, which should be declaring at around 2.30pm. The Blackpool South by-election result is also expected in the early hours.
Then tomorrow Lib Dems should be watching West Oxfordshire, Brentwood, Wokingham, Tunbridge Wells, Elmbridge and Gloucester.
Do tell us in the comments if you have any useful local knowledge.
* Mary Reid is a contributing editor on Lib Dem Voice. She was a councillor in Kingston upon Thames, where she is still very active with the local party, and is the Hon President of Kingston Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
William Wallace: Reading Biggles in Westminster Abbey
The wonder of Liverpool - Part 2
#interrail2025: Day 7 - one last bask in the Italian sunshine...
Welcome immigrants (3)
Friday nights at the Botanic Garden - and Saturday mornings too! #dundeewestend
Starmer's race to the bottom
Tony Paterson
Katharine Pindar
Steve Trevethan
theakes
Simon Mcgrath
17 Comments
The office of Metro Mayor really is a undemocratic abomination and should be abolished asap.
The declaration in the London Mayor and Assembly elections will be on Saturday evening at the earliest. Verification is on Friday and the Count on Saturday.
The polling data issued by YouGov from 30 April/1 May are Labour 44%, Conservatives 18%, Reform UK 15%, Lib Dems 10% and Greens 8%.
We shall have to see how that compares to today’s elections. My guess is that Reform UK will be very much lower (they do not even have the candidates), the Conservatives will be be better than 18% but do very badly in terms of seats lost. The figure to be nervous about is the Liberal Democrat vote. Numbers in the high teens (or better) would provide a springboard for national elections. Numbers nearer to the poll figure of 10% would provide ammunition for Tories trying to hang on to their seats.
As our socio-economy seems to be run by the Bank of England rather than by H. M. G., might the voting of today be an activity more of hope than hard reality?
Very quiet at the polls in Pendle in Lancashire this morning/early afternoon. Hopeful of a couple of gains, results expected Friday afternoon. Good luck to all our candidates.
The other background issue to look out for is the turnout and how many people are turned away. Since people who vote in local elections are more motivated, they are more likely to have found some kind of photographic identity. Also, the list of authorised identity documents for younger people is narrow. We can expect much larger numbers deprived of their vote in a General Election.
Spotted on Conservative Home, posted by one of their most virulent Reform/anti-Brexit types:
” My own South Hams District Council isn’t included in today’s voting but if it were (and if I were in England) my vote would go to a local LibDem who’s by far the most intelligent, productive, diligent local councillor I’ve known”
Whoever our candidate is – I salute you!
Interesting that Martin Bennett raises the issue of turnout.
Apparently the turnout in Hull dropped to a new all time low of just on 20%, the Lib Dem’s retained control but lost three seats to Labour.
Again on turnout, delighted to hear the architect of voter ID, one Johnson, B dePf, was turned away from his polling station in Oxfordshire because he forgot to bring his photo ID.
Thanks, David Raw,
I was so surprised by the low figure, I felt I had to check. Most reports ignored it, but a BBC report gave 21.43%. This is disconcertingly very low. It makes me wonder if the publicity about voter ID has only told voters who do not think they have it to not bother.
Low turnouts create conditions which are ripe for exploitation in all sorts of ways and delegitimise local governance. The strategy of central government, particularly over the last few years under the Tories, does seem to have been to disempower and reduce the relevance of local government.
If turnouts are generally much lower, the issue should not be ignored: our Party needs to speak out.
Martin and David, I share concern about low turnout. Is one factor the lack of activists who can work all year round delivering leaflets and knocking doors to keep up a sense of community ? I wonder how many activists we have in Hull who are not councillors but have the time to work in and communicate with, their local communities ?
When I was a councillor we delivered around 6 informative ward leaflets a year and although some Lib-Dems said these were not enough about campaigning and more like parish magazines we were able to build on these communications when we were campaigning for re-election. Politics has to be seen to be linked to what goes on day by day in people’s lives. All parties have less activists now; in some places in the past each party even had identifiable ‘parties’ for each ward.
I think you’ll find in that in much of the country, Labour still has distinct identifiable parties for each ward – certainly in Labour areas, probably not in rural/Tory areas where Labour’s membership wouldn’t be high enough: But even in those places, I’d expect there would tend to be distinct Labour parties that cover several wards but less than a full constituency.
Paltry turnouts are usually the norm for council elections / by-elections / PCC election / and historically the EU elections ….
Most folks are not political, and many only vote at a GE ….The more deprived the area the lower it gets in my experience..
Forgive me, David Raw, for supplementing your information on Hull: the BBC DID report that Labour gained 3 seats from LDs. What they DIDN’T mention is that the LDs gained one from Labour.
So labour had a net gain of 2, not three.
This is just one of many BBC inaccuracies.
@ Chris Moore,
“LDs gained one from Labour………So labour had a net gain of 2, not three.”
Why would anyone care? I can understand that there might be some preference for one or the other candidate on a personal basis, but why bother about labels? There’s little policy difference, if any, between the two parties.
Or is politics now like supporting a football team? There’s no particular reason for our choice of team but it’s something that we’ve always done.
Inaccuracy is of no importance?
You have only very recently abandoned your long-term support for Labour Football Club. Surely it is much too early for you to be appointing yourself to a pedagogic role on party political support.
@ Chris Moore,
I haven’t abandoned my support for the Labour Movement. Unfortunately the Labour Party has been hijacked by anti-democratic forces. So I’m out of that for now. We’ll have to see just how permanent this is.
Lib Dems do seem to find it hard to explain just what their differences are with Starmers Labour Party. There used to be differences. For the sake of democracy there should be again. Voters would then have a genuine choice between left, centre and right.