UK local elections are a real mixed bag, as thousands of seemingly-interchangeable candidates of various political stripes vie to be local councillor, crime commissioner or city mayor. This is democracy at its purest: in such small communities every vote matters and successful candidates really do have the power to tangibly improve the lives of their constituents. Despite all its shambolic British charms (it’s the only day of the year most people set foot in their local primary school), election day is not ‘Carry On Voting’. It is serious business and the results of Thursday’s vote represent a political earthquake. The aftershock will most certainly be felt on the green benches of Westminster. 

Perhaps predictably, the Cambridge bubble went unpenetrated by national trends. While nationally Labour failed to match Ed Miliband’s impressive performance in 2012, the party tightened their grip on Cambridge, winning nine wards in all. The Liberal Democrats also performed strongly. Their four wins included an eye-catching victory in the marginal Market ward. Both parties are still reeling from the disastrous result of last May’s general election and they will be pleased to see their vote shares remain intact in Cambridge. Having said this, Labour is the first opposition party not to increase its number of seats in mid-term elections in England since 1985. Moreover, the 1985 local elections foreshadowed a landslide victory for a second-term Tory government.

Mid-term elections usually represent a chance for a weary electorate to give the current lot a kicking. Perversely, Thursday’s elections are being viewed in some quarters (most notably on the centre-left of the Labour Party) as a referendum on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. His allies will perceive victories in southern, student towns to be evidence that the current strategy can counter the threat posed by other progressive parties such as the Greens. Given the recent controversies (particularly with regard to the rising tide of anti-Semitism in the party) I’m sure Corbyn will be pleased to have come through the local elections relatively unscathed. This was not the apocalyptic result that his detractors – and the pollsters – predicted. Still, it was hardly the sort of ringing endorsement that will allow Labour to gather momentum heading towards 2020.

However, the big news coming in overnight was of Sadiq Khan’s London mayoral win. At the risk of sounding extremely partisan, I am glad to see Khan win. In my opinion, the human rights lawyer and son of a bus driver has run a positive campaign that has sought to address the ubiquitous issues confronting lower-income Londoners. In particular, the ‘London Living Rent’ is a creative initiative designed to combat the capital’s worsening housing crisis.

The fact that Khan managed to win so resoundingly is all the more remarkable given the deplorable campaign his opponent ran against him. Zac Goldsmith arguably came in to the race as the favourite. Commentators predicted that his easy charm and boyish good looks would serve him well, especially given his previous attempts to distance himself from a polarising Westminster government (most notably over the third runway at Heathrow). However, Goldsmith’s name will be forever associated with a series of both subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to draw negative attention to Sadiq Khan’s race and religion. The indiscriminate leafleting of Londoners of Gujarati origin immediately springs to mind as an example of how badly Goldsmith misjudged his electorate. As a Londoner I am proud that my fellow citizens have not been swayed by Goldsmith’s puerile attempts to exploit Western Europe’s current wave of Islamophobia.

It remains to be seen how having a Labour London mayor will affect Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure. Sadiq Khan is still an MP and he now has a platform (and, more importantly, a mandate) from which to vociferously criticise Corbyn’s own leadership as well as the Conservative Party. While Corbyn will of course be overjoyed to see a member of the red team occupying City Hall, it will not have gone unnoticed that Khan routinely denounced and distanced himself from the Labour leadership during the campaign. Khan now has the power to bring about the downfall of his leader, not by sniping and undermining him from the side-lines but through effective government. I would go as far as saying that his stewardship of the capital could even set a new blueprint for social democratic government.

There is plenty of substance in the results of Thursday’s elections. But one worrying fact remains: despite a dramatic increase to 40.1 per cent in Cambridge, voter turnout across the country is too low. There is an astonishing lack of awareness of the fact that local elections are an important opportunity for us as citizens to exercise our agency over the political process, not just locally but also nationally.

This is a fluid and dynamic time in British politics, and excitingly, the results of Thursday’s elections will resonate for many months to come.