Analysis by Tim Hames

THESE were not a set of local elections for those nervous of statistics. In many ways they have been the most complicated for years. In those parts of England outside of the capital, the appropriate comparison for 2006 was with the 2004 council elections when virtually all these wards were last contested. In London none of the boroughs had been fought over since May 2002.

The difference between these two dates is not just the stuff to thrill the political equivalent of trainspotters (although, to be honest, it surely does). It makes for two wildly diverse elections.

In 2004, Labour had an utterly atrocious evening, falling to third place in the national share of vote and recording easily the worst performance since Tony Blair assumed the Labour leadership in 1994. In 2002, by contrast, the Conservatives under the leadership of Iain Duncan Smith only managed to tie with Labour in London. If the Tories had not done a lot better under David Cameron this time, then it would have been a huge embarrassment to a Notting Hill set that prides itself on being in touch with modern metropolitan society.

If this implies that last night was a game of two halves, that would be a mistaken impression. It was instead a game of three thirds. In the urban north of England, where Labour had feared a "yellow peril", a huge swing to the Liberal Democrats in their traditional heartlands, this largely failed to occur.

The Labour outcome was hardly fantastic — by historic standards it was pretty miserable — yet it was not noticeably worse than in 2004 and may, on detailed inspection, prove to have been a slight improvement. This will be a huge relief to Labour MPs, while astute Lib Dems might begin to wonder whether their strong showing a few years ago was artificially inflated by a backlash against the Iraq war that is disappearing.

The second third constitutes those parts of England that are outside London but rural or suburban. The Conservatives made modest gains here, as much at the expense of the Liberal Democrats as Labour. Once again, Sir Menzies Campbell will have a few reasons to be privately disappointed. It was not rash to hope that a collapse in the remaining Labour vote in these kinds of council would assist his party and harm the Tories. What seems to have happened in practice, though, is a churning effect with some Labour switchers to the Lib Dems but more than offset by other electors switching from the Lib Dems to the Tories.

The third third was London. Labour took a terrible beating in the capital although the decline in its vote was not quite as spectacular as the tumble in the number of seats. The party did notably worse than in the 2002 elections, reinforcing the pattern highlighted in the general election last year. Labour drained votes in every direction - to the Conservatives in two-horses races and the Liberal Democrats, Greens, Respect and the BNP elsewhere.

The one mercy for the party was that it did better against the Lib Dems in boroughs such as Haringey, Islington and Lambeth than the city-wide trend might have hinted at. Nonetheless, the third third was by far the worse third for the Government. If the whole country had behaved like London, overall Labour losses would have topped 425 seats - a defeat that would have imperilled the Prime Minister.

Yet it is not that surprising. The last general election also revealed a game of three thirds. Mr Blair clung on to power because potentially marginal seats in the north of England mostly stayed in his hands, while he lost a significant but tolerable tally of seats in the second third and was battered hardest of all in and around the capital.

It would be staggering if the keystone cops activities of Charles Clarke, the personal life of John Prescott and the apparent hostility of nurses towards Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, had not made a bad situation worse for Labour in the last ten days of the campaign. But the trends that seemed to materialise in a complex series of ballots yesterday were not new nor do they herald a new political era.

-----

Rather discouraging that the loses are confined to the city and don't signal a change in government.

Blair's bloodly nose :-)
_{"at some point I'm hopeful I'll figure out something to put here"}

Plug Gets Pulled on 'Jack and Condi' Show

Saturday May 6, 2006 2:31 AM

AP Photo WX106

By ANNE GEARAN

AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Jack Straw's ouster as British foreign minister put an abrupt end to the ``Jack and Condi Show,'' a diplomatic alliance and traveling revue that introduced Straw to down-home Southern cooking and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the finer points of soccer terminology.

Straw and Rice were a political odd couple, but the jocular former left wing student leader and the buttoned-up Republican piano prodigy quickly formed a strong bond when Rice took over from Colin Powell as the top U.S. diplomat last year. They teamed up on issues including Iraq, Iran and Mideast peace, holding impromptu strategy sessions by cell phone.

Straw was the one foreign leader Rice called herself, at any hour, without bothering to notify aides. Straw did the same.

Rice called Straw to say goodbye following news that he had been demoted in a Cabinet shuffle. Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, called the conversation bittersweet. ``They were colleagues, but they also developed a great friendship,'' McCormack said.

Rice later called Straw's designated successor to say hello.

The close relationship was on display in the fall, when Rice asked Straw and his wife, Alice, to accompany her on a tour of her native Alabama that was widely seen as a prelude to a possible run for president.

The visit included several civil rights events, plus a raucous college football game that was a deliberate contrast to the dry policy meetings that visiting foreign ministers usually attend in Washington. Straw grinned throughout the game and said he was delighted, if a bit perplexed by the rules.

Rice said the Straw visit would be the first in a series of invitations to allow allied foreign ministers to see parts of the United States beyond the capital

more