We MPs are fungi, in the dark, covered in manure

[Palisadoes]

What I don't get is why we mark the papers with a pencil. Surely it's better to use pen, just so that you know it won't get rubbed out. Saying that, we never know if our vote gets counted anyway.

[jimmy olsen]

Brutal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/05/local-elections-european-elections

The election results seem to be disastrous for Labour, but not brilliant for the Tories either. The BBC has just flagged up the projected national share of the vote. Labour is on 23%, which seems to be its worst performance for decades; the Tories are on 38%; and the Lib Dems are on 28%.

[Palisadoes]

Brutal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/05/local-elections-european-elections

The election results seem to be disastrous for Labour, but not brilliant for the Tories either. The BBC has just flagged up the projected national share of the vote. Labour is on 23%, which seems to be its worst performance for decades; the Tories are on 38%; and the Lib Dems are on 28%.

Not sure how accurate that is given that the Lib Dems have *currently* lost seats. See here.

[jimmy olsen]

Brutal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/05/local-elections-european-elections

The election results seem to be disastrous for Labour, but not brilliant for the Tories either. The BBC has just flagged up the projected national share of the vote. Labour is on 23%, which seems to be its worst performance for decades; the Tories are on 38%; and the Lib Dems are on 28%.

Not sure how accurate that is given that the Lib Dems have *currently* lost seats. See here.

That map's off, it shows far more than 7 councils colored in.

[Palisadoes]

That map's off, it shows far more than 7 councils colored in.

Because more than 7 councils' results have come in. The statistics on the side indicate the specific number of councillors, etc... from certain councils, though the map indicates where each party has won.

Anyway, it'd be good having Cameron's Tories in power with the opposition of the Lib Dems. Cameron is, for all intents and purposes, a liberal himself; albeit with a conservative ribbon.

[jimmy olsen]

Ouch, Labour's lost 144 seats so far. That's close to a 60% loss rate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/local-election-results-map-2009

[Admiral Yi]

What I don't get is why we mark the papers with a pencil. Surely it's better to use pen, just so that you know it won't get rubbed out. Saying that, we never know if our vote gets counted anyway.

Hey mang, who are you?

[jimmy olsen]

With 32 of 34 councils called Labour has lost 268 seats.  :pinchL

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/local-election-results-map-2009

[Richard Hakluyt]

Just when you think it couldn't get any worse, the Dutch have beaten us at cricket  !!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/8082343.stm

Admittedly only the debased twenty20 form, but even so 

Surely brown has to go now 

[Neil]

With 32 of 34 councils called Labour has lost 268 seats.  :pinchL

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/local-election-results-map-2009

The LibDems have lost seats as well.  It seems that for some reason, the Tories are destined to rule Britain again, unless something odd happens between now and the general election.

[Neil]

Just when you think it couldn't get any worse, the Dutch have beaten us at cricket  !!!

How does that happen?  That's like Mexico beating the US at football.

[Neil]

Ken Livingstone thinks it's the olden days again.  He sounds like a member of one of those fringe ultra-left parties that are always splitting up.

While Labour Party and trade union members were out campaigning for Thursday's elections, a narrow clique of hard right-wingers were doing everything in their power to sabotage Labour's campaign and carry out a coup against the Prime Minister.

The rank and file and the party will have nothing but contempt for these people.

The elections show that the British people want more radical measures to protect them in the economic crisis and decisive action to end the abuse of MPs' expenses.

The parliamentary plotters have nothing to contribute to protecting ordinary people from the economic crisis. Their criticism of Gordon Brown is that he is not Thatcherite enough! And many lost all personal credibility by abuse of the MPs' expenses system.

The splitters should be brushed aside so that the party can focus totally on winning the general election.

[Ed Anger]

All hail Lord Adonis.

http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=79034

I love Brit silly names.

[Sheilbh]

Ken Livingstone thinks it's the olden days again.  He sounds like a member of one of those fringe ultra-left parties that are always splitting up.

Kenin's always sounded like this.

Lord Adonis is actually rather highly rated but it's still pathetic that to fill his Cabinet Brown has to use so many Lords.  This is the least democratic cabinet since the war and while I don't mind a Lord or two in the cabinet this is getting ridiculous.

It's also offensive to anyone's intelligence when Harriet Harman calls Glennys Kinnock a fresh face.  She's been in the European Parliament for a decade and a half.  Before that she was the wife of the former Labour leader, and then European Commissioner, Neil Kinnock who led the party for around 10 years from 1983-4.  The idea that someone who's been a fixture at the very top of Labour party politics since Gordon Brown first became an MP is, in any way, a 'fresh face' is just ridiculous.

What's more I'm really pissed off at the people who have the admirable instinct to rally the party right now, but do it by trashing Purnell.  John Prescott said Purnell's not a Blairite he's a 'careerite' that's bullshit.  Purnell's a highly rated Minister who's returning to the backbenches while numerous other people who doubt the leadership of the Great Gordo are keeping onto their Ministerial Rovers (Miliband, Darling, Johnson especially), that's the act of careerism.

If Brown doesn't go - which is a hideous possibility tonight (though we have more awful results due on Sunday and he's out of the country on Saturday) - then when there's a Labour leadership election after the election Purnell will be one of the very few people who can say he genuinely tried to stem the bleeding.  I've liked him and tipped him for leader for a long while now.  I still hope he's the next leader or, at least, next leader but one.  All respect and hope I had for Johnson and Miliband's rather dissipated, Andy Burnham's gone down in my estimation too.

He's lost four cabinet ministers, has to depend on appointed peers to find any talent to fill the table and he still won't go.  He's like the terminator

I'll try and find a Spectator blog post from Fraser Nelson which highlights the problem with Gordon Brown.

Edit:  Sorry he's lost 6 cabinet level ministers not 4.

[Sheilbh]

Found it:

Facing Brown's spending deceptions
Fraser Nelson 9:12pm

I was at Brown's press conference today and decided to tackle him on the way he spun the last Budget. Off topic on a momentous day like today, I know, but it was towards the end of the conference and the old rogue may be gone within a month. I may never get another chance to tackle him directly on the way he has misled the public over the huge cuts he has planned for us post-election.

It seemed all the more relevant because his theme was that he is an honest chap. "Candid", he said. He quoted his father telling him "always be honest". And then he claimed that the choice at the next election was between a party of cuts and one of investment. So when my turn came to ask a question, I addressed what is - in my view - one of the worst falsehoods he is peddling.

Labour's planned cuts were so well hidden in the Budget that no Fleet St newspaper either spotted them on the day or spoke about them subsequently.  Yet the Institute for Fiscal Studies did pick up on them, and I blogged their discovery at the time.  To remind CoffeeHousers: Brown had Darling mislead the House in claiming spending would rise by an average 0.7pc a year in 2011-14. The truth is that it will be cut by an average 2.3pc a year over this period - actual cuts of £22bn a year. Brown has never admitted this, nor have the Tories raised it - fearful of being asked what they would cut. As a result, the public is being kept in the dark about the sharpest spending contraction in UK postwar history.

How do you pose a question like this? If you generalise, you give him a get out clause. So I decided to give it to him in detail, thus:

    "Prime Minister, you say you're being candid with us today. And you are quoting your father saying, 'Always be honest'. Why then haven't you mentioned the cuts that you plan after the election? The Budget proposed what the Institute for Fiscal Studies claims is 2.3% cuts year after year after year. A cumulative 7% over three years, across government. This is a hugely significant fact that will directly affect public services. All I want to ask you, Prime Minister – and please "always be honest" – is the IFS right? Do you plan 2.3% cuts in public services for three consecutive years?"

"Not at all" he replied, "Public spending is rising every year. Let's be absolutely clear about that" – and went on about spending today. "And in every year in the future of public spending it will continue to rise." Predictably, he then moved on to those wicked Tory cuts. "And I think you yourself wrote an article only a few days ago saying that if the Conservatives cut public spending their plan was to cut public spending by 10%".

The sheer scope of Brown's mendacity can overwhelm a guy. He is attacking his own Budget: Labour plans 7% cuts but because the Tories would spare health (and not spend more than he plans to) they would cut 10%. So I shouted out at him: "Your budget. Your cuts."

But what No.10 do is to have a chap with a microphone on a rod, who takes it away from you when the Dear Leader has had enough of your question. Only Brown has a mike, so his comments are always heard. He continued, saying that under the  "Tory cuts," "schools close, hospitals close". But this is what would happen under his cuts. If he thinks that the cuts he has proposed in Budget 09 would lead to such closures, it is a matter of national importance.

He then moved to take another question. So I started shouting out again: "No, Prime Minister, this is an important point. It's in the national interest to discuss it."  He then tried to flag me down. "I know you want a second point like everybody else, but please." But I was making such noise that the No10 microphone guy came back to me. "You misled us in the first question. This is important to get accurate." Brown kept trying to shut me up, waving his hand: "Please, please. I've said..." Soon enough the mike guy worked out what was going on, and skidaddled. I was mute.

The point I was trying to make is toxic to Brown's election narrative. He wants it to be spending v cuts, whereas the truth is that - going off their current plans - each party would impose identical cuts. The only difference is where in public services the axe falls: debt interest, Brown's parting gift to this nation, is not discretionary. Brown's strategy is to hope Tories will be honest about their cuts, while he covers his up.

About five years ago, when I was at The Business, one of Brown's aides told me that no one would take me seriously as a journalist because I was so "off beam" writing about Brown's destructive economic agenda while others were praising him to high heaven. I did feel a bit Speaker's Corner today, shouting out at him over the coming radical spending crunch that is simply not an issue, anywhere, because Brown has done such a good job putting the media off the scent. In fact, I doubt if anyone watching this exchange would have known what I was getting worked up about. So to this extent, my intervention was a failure.

We spend some time  here in Coffee House tearing up figures, and exposing Brown's deceptions.  Quite a few of you rightly ask, "Why don't you journalists do your job and raise it with him?" Well. all I can say is that today, in what may well have been my last chance, I did try. And I can't say I got very far.

P.S. Someone has kindly captured my exchange with Brown on YouTube, with the caption that I "nailed" him - which, as you can see for yourselves, is not quite the case.  But here's the footage of me trying to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAr5zu7YdRA