UK General Election, 2017 - Election Day and Results Thread

[Zinneke]

I'm also curious as to why Liverpool is so overwhelmingly Labour (and so strongly remain). It wasn't the only city that was destroyed by Thatcher.

Hillsborough

[Intell]

I know Brighton (though I think Hove is still slightly to the right of Brighton), question is where did this increase in voters come from

Student turnout being the same as turnout from everyone else for the first time ever. Same as in other very heavily Uni influenced constituencies.

Do many of the students at Brighton or Sussex live in Hove? best I could find is that 8% are in full time education?

I wonder if there might also be a combination of the EU referendum accelerating an already existing trend (Brighton and Hove was 69% remain after all - more than London), and the ongoing Southern Rail crisis meaning Corbyn's promise of rail nationalisation was particularly well received.

The North West swinging towards Labour does stick out a bit; what happened in socially-liberal, highly educated areas of the south is understandable, but the North West sticks out from the rest of the post-industrial England as it hasn't trended to the right in the same way. Even in the EU referendum, the North West was much closer than the rest of the North and the Midlands were.

I understand that a lot of this is due to both Manchester and the extreme levels of Labour support in Merseyside (which is a curious phenomenon in itself), but Labour winning in places like Bury North is really something of a shock.

Not really, no.  Bury North was a Labour seat until 2010 and had a very small Tory majority last time.  Labour also have the majority of local councillors in the seat and run the town well - Bury is a thriving place compared to most of the other Manchester satellites.

OK, Bury North might not be the best example - but the swing in the NW was much better for Labour than it was in Yorkshire, the NE or the Midlands; and in contrast to other old industrial elections the North West, both the smalle towns and the two big cities, seem to have held up much better for Labour (and the remain vote in the NW was much higher). As a whole, the region actually seems to be moving left.

I'm also curious as to why Liverpool is so overwhelmingly Labour (and so strongly remain). It wasn't the only city that was destroyed by Thatcher.

Liverpool isn't strongly reamin though.
   
Remain (%)

Liverpool Riverside: 73.2% (Has a high youth population)
Liverpool Wavetree: 64.2% (Has more slightly better off people???)
Liverpool West-Derby: 49.8%
Liverpool Walton: 46.2%

Other seats in merseyside, voted to leave, such as Bootle & Birkenhead.

Liverpool along with Glasgow (and other industrial areas in Scotland) most coal mining areas have a more solid-left wing tendency than other woking class communities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgMPq1gecJ0


(after thatcher's death)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtwavcblPzo


and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhme9zaK4WU

(justice for 96)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-4FJcnX0i8

(just in a random football game)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i29lqMkKNus

(oh a former prime minister's just died)

[136or142]

Any possibility The Conservative Party could be shamed to back out of this deal with DUP and the Liberal Democrats could step into the breach, not with a coalition but by agreeing to give their votes on supply and confidence measures?

Not for any price May will be willing to pay (ref. on final deal)

Drat. I wasn't sure what you meant by 'ref.' and I was going to suggest they could put Brexit aside by agreeing that either a referendum or a general election on the negotiated agreement would settle the matter.

[parochial boy]

Liverpool wasnt a coal mining area though (a bit around St Helens, but not to anything like the extent of S Yorks other parts of Lancashire). It wasnt even a major manufacturing centre like Manchester. It was chiefly a port city, with a huge Irish immigrant population, so maybe that legacy has meant it stayed more outward looking?

I struggle to believe that Hillsborough would have had such a huge impact on local politics.

And yet Liverpool votes well to the left of other working class areas (80% labour, as opposed to 60% labour in Newcastle, Sheffield, Leeds - lower than that in smaller towns like Dewsbury)

And Liverpool was much stronger remain territory than Leeds, or Sheffield, or Birmingham. Which are all wealthier cities. Even Knowsley voted to remain, Knowsley!

[YL]

Liverpool wasnt a coal mining area though (a bit around St Helens, but not to anything like the extent of S Yorks other parts of Lancashire). It wasnt even a major manufacturing centre like Manchester. It was chiefly a port city, with a huge Irish immigrant population, so maybe that legacy has meant it stayed more outward looking?

I struggle to believe that Hillsborough would have had such a huge impact on local politics.

And yet Liverpool votes well to the left of other working class areas (80% labour, as opposed to 60% labour in Newcastle, Sheffield, Leeds - lower than that in smaller towns like Dewsbury)

And Liverpool was much stronger remain territory than Leeds, or Sheffield, or Birmingham. Which are all wealthier cities. Even Knowsley voted to remain, Knowsley!

They don't read the Sun.

Also, from time to time you get these stories where someone on the British right says something rude about Liverpool and its people.  You never get this about Leeds, Sheffield or Birmingham (unless mocking of accents counts in the last case).  That must help to give an impression to the people of Merseyside that the Tories have a fair amount of contempt for them, which leads to the embarrassing election results even in relatively posh parts of the Liverpool area (see Sefton Central).

[Intell]

Liverpool wasnt a coal mining area though (a bit around St Helens, but not to anything like the extent of S Yorks other parts of Lancashire). It wasnt even a major manufacturing centre like Manchester. It was chiefly a port city, with a huge Irish immigrant population, so maybe that legacy has meant it stayed more outward looking?

I struggle to believe that Hillsborough would have had such a huge impact on local politics.

And yet Liverpool votes well to the left of other working class areas (80% labour, as opposed to 60% labour in Newcastle, Sheffield, Leeds - lower than that in smaller towns like Dewsbury)

And Liverpool was much stronger remain territory than Leeds, or Sheffield, or Birmingham. Which are all wealthier cities. Even Knowsley voted to remain, Knowsley!

I meant to say it's left-wingerism is equivalent to coal mining areas (and even more these days).

Militant was stronger in Liverpool than other working class cities.

Football, plays a huge part into it, from Hillsborough to Robbie Fowler's support of the docker's strike, and the club being generally left-wing.

Liverpool is the most left-wing city bar Glasgow in the UK.

[Former President tack50]

Adam Stirling‏
@Adam_Stirling
Following
More
Hillary Clinton's vote: 48.2%

"What a horrible corporatist. Bernie would have won."

Corbyn's Labour Pty vote: 40%

"Corbyn basically won."

There are big differences between the US and UK systems that explain why 40% is a good result (almost tied with Blair in 2001 actually) in the UK but bad in the US. In the US since the 2 party system is a lot stronger getting 40% means you are losing in a Mondale style landslide unless there's a strong third party (Bill Clinton only got 43% in 92 for example) because the other 60% will go almost entirely to your rival. However third parties are rare in the US.

Also, let's remember that Corbyn was at least 20 points behind when the election was called, and he only lost by 2.5!

If anything this proves that left wing populism can be used to win elections. However, left wing populists record has been mixed. They won in Greece, and kept it close in France and the UK, but they did do badly in Spain other than at the local level (they hold several of the largest cities, including Madrid, Barcelona and Zaragoza)

This is the argument I saw in reply to Adam Stirling from several people, but it really doesn't wash.  Labour/Corbyn lost the popular vote 42.6-40.0% whereas Hillary Clinton won the popular vote 48.2-46.1.  And if you use the seat count as a proxy for the electoral college, Hillary Clinton didn't do much worse than Corbyn/Labour.  Losing 306-232 to Corybn's 318-262.

Also, for what it's worth, the 2016 U.S election had the highest vote percentage for third parties since 1996.

Oh, sure, Clinton did do better. She did win after all while Corbyn did lose.

However the thing is that she was always ahead. Theresa May called the election on the 18th of April, with the election taking place on the 8th of June. A similar timescale would put Clinton on the 18th of September roughly. At that time Clinton was ahead in the polls by 1 point, and ended up winning by 2.

Meanwhile Corbyn was losing by 20 points and only lost by 2. Granted, the US system is less flexible than the British one, but even adjusting for that if Clinton had performed as well as Corbyn on the campaign she should have won by at the very least Obama 08 margins, probably more than that. Instead she won by only 2 points and lost the electoral college.

Better comparisons in the US could be the 2000 election (Gore was apparently ahead by 8 on mid September, won by 0.5), the 1980 election (Regan and Carter were tied in mid September, Reagan won by 10) or better yet the 1976 election (Carter was ahead by 10 in mid September, won by 2).

And even then all of those were closer elections than this one (then again the US are more inflexible as I said).

And while the US did have a large number of votes for 3rd parties in 2016, it's nothing like the UK. The Lib Dems alone had more votes than all third parties in the US combined. Labour and the Conservatives got 83% of the vote. There aren't many US elections where 3rd parties got 17%. In the 20th century there's only 1992, 1924 and 1912.

[136or142]

Adam Stirling‏
@Adam_Stirling
Following
More
Hillary Clinton's vote: 48.2%

"What a horrible corporatist. Bernie would have won."

Corbyn's Labour Pty vote: 40%

"Corbyn basically won."

There are big differences between the US and UK systems that explain why 40% is a good result (almost tied with Blair in 2001 actually) in the UK but bad in the US. In the US since the 2 party system is a lot stronger getting 40% means you are losing in a Mondale style landslide unless there's a strong third party (Bill Clinton only got 43% in 92 for example) because the other 60% will go almost entirely to your rival. However third parties are rare in the US.

Also, let's remember that Corbyn was at least 20 points behind when the election was called, and he only lost by 2.5!

If anything this proves that left wing populism can be used to win elections. However, left wing populists record has been mixed. They won in Greece, and kept it close in France and the UK, but they did do badly in Spain other than at the local level (they hold several of the largest cities, including Madrid, Barcelona and Zaragoza)

This is the argument I saw in reply to Adam Stirling from several people, but it really doesn't wash.  Labour/Corbyn lost the popular vote 42.6-40.0% whereas Hillary Clinton won the popular vote 48.2-46.1.  And if you use the seat count as a proxy for the electoral college, Hillary Clinton didn't do much worse than Corbyn/Labour.  Losing 306-232 to Corybn's 318-262.

Also, for what it's worth, the 2016 U.S election had the highest vote percentage for third parties since 1996.

Oh, sure, Clinton did do better. She did win after all while Corbyn did lose.

However the thing is that she was always ahead. Theresa May called the election on the 18th of April, with the election taking place on the 8th of June. A similar timescale would put Clinton on the 18th of September roughly. At that time Clinton was ahead in the polls by 1 point, and ended up winning by 2.

Meanwhile Corbyn was losing by 20 points and only lost by 2. Granted, the US system is less flexible than the British one, but even adjusting for that if Clinton had performed as well as Corbyn on the campaign she should have won by at the very least Obama 08 margins, probably more than that. Instead she won by only 2 points and lost the electoral college.

Better comparisons in the US could be the 2000 election (Gore was apparently ahead by 8 on mid September, won by 0.5), the 1980 election (Regan and Carter were tied in mid September, Reagan won by 10) or better yet the 1976 election (Carter was ahead by 10 in mid September, won by 2).

And even then all of those were closer elections than this one (then again the US are more inflexible as I said).

And while the US did have a large number of votes for 3rd parties in 2016, it's nothing like the UK. The Lib Dems alone had more votes than all third parties in the US combined. Labour and the Conservatives got 83% of the vote. There aren't many US elections where 3rd parties got 17%. In the 20th century there's only 1992, 1924 and 1912.

You're overlooking the concept of diminishing returns. 

My favorite discussion of this was on the PBS program of the 1990s called Square One Television.  (I always look for a chance to bring this program up.)  One of the segments was called Late Afternoon with David Numberman.  The Paul Shaffer person on the program remarked to the guest Numberman had on "Before the 1950s, the fastest run was under 5 minutes, then it was under 4 minutes, and we seem to be heading to under 3 minutes.  At this rate, how long will it be before people can complete their run before they've even started?"    The guest then mentioned the problem of diminishing returns.

[parochial boy]

I meant to say it's left-wingerism is equivalent to coal mining areas (and even more these days).

Militant was stronger in Liverpool than other working class cities.

Football, plays a huge part into it, from Hillsborough to Robbie Fowler's support of the docker's strike, and the club being generally left-wing.

Liverpool is the most left-wing city bar Glasgow in the UK.

Yeah, that was what I was getting at. Liverpool is significantly more left wing (economically and socially) than other working class communities. Historically though, it did used to be a relatively strong area for th Conservatives, as it had a strong Protestant-Unionist tradition back in the bad old days of sectarianism.

They don't read the Sun.

Christ, if that's the level of impact the Sun has then it's absolutely terrifying.

I guess it's not just that people read it, but the fact that what they read in it influences the conversation they have, and winds up making things a lot more pervasive.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One thing to note wrt comparing results to last time: you wouldn't think so from the media narrative but under Miliband Labour actually recovered decently in South Yorkshire and the North East, but did not in e.g. the industrial parts of Wales.

[Peter]

Not sure if it has been mentioned here:

This election marks the end of at least 200 years of continuous Liberal Democrat/Liberal/Whig representation in Wales.

(I count all the Lloyd George family service as Liberal service, even when they were officially Independent Liberals)

[DavidB.]

Is anyone up to drawing a net swing map by constituency? I'd be very interested in unpacking the patterns there.

NYT have one here. Big swings to Labour in London, the South, the North West, and urban areas in general. Small swings (sometimes even to the Tories) in the Midlands and even bigger swings to the Tories in North Eastern Leaveland and in Scotland (for different reasons, obviously).

[Leftbehind]

Charts putting this election into context:-

https://imgur.com/a/Iz6oV

[FrancoAgo]

When the Tories did better in Scotland?
i've checked since '92 and 2017 is the best.

Tories did very well for rising of anti-independence feels?

[Boston Bread]

I calculated the results under PR by region (Sainte-Laguë, 10% threshold):

Tory: 298 (-20)
Labour: 288 (+26)
SNP: 24 (-11)
LD: 18 (+6)
DUP 8 (-2)
SF 6 (-1)
PC 4 (=)
UUP 2 (+2)
SDLP 2 (+2)

NYT has one, though it's using the 1 hexagon/seat type map.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/08/world/europe/british-general-election-results-analysis.html

Also a bit of caution, in some seats in the North where UKIP were second in 2015, Labours margin of victory was higher than in 2015, but with Conservatives coming second instead. So in a sense this seat has been good for Labour but it'd be treated as a swing to the Conservatives as they gained more than Labour. For example in Rotherham Lab won by 30 this time and 22 last time (over UKIP) but it is still a 5 point swing to the Conservatives.

[VPH]

How come Lib Dems did well in some random seats but not in places right next to them? For example, North Norfalk.

[Helsinkian]

How come Lib Dems did well in some random seats but not in places right next to them? For example, North Norfalk.

Advantage of being an incumbent MP, plus tactical voting by Labour supporters to prevent a Tory from winning.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

East Midlands

[Boston Bread]

Here's a series of regional maps:
http://imgur.com/a/N36Nr

Only thing missing is showing swings from 2015.

[Boston Bread]

I believe the Labour vote spread has actually become more efficient in this election. Labour needs a uniform swing of 3.3% to get a majority now, and a 2% swing gets them 40 gains. If I recall correctly a 7% swing was needed for a majority based on 2015 results. The list of marginals for both parties have become larger and closer than before, in fact.

https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/873577214847176704

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is anyone up to drawing a net swing map by constituency? I'd be very interested in unpacking the patterns there.

Swing not particularly meaningful this election given the UKIP collapse and the mobilisation of the student vote.

I know that that's likely what we would see in a swing map, but why isn't it interesting to see?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is anyone up to drawing a net swing map by constituency? I'd be very interested in unpacking the patterns there.

Swing not particularly meaningful this election given the UKIP collapse and the mobilisation of the student vote.

I know that that's likely what we would see in a swing map, but why isn't it interesting to see?

I didn't say it wouldn't be interesting, I said it wouldn't be useful. Different things!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The West Country. Labour were second in two of those close seats in Cornwall. And David Drew is back, somehow.

[DavidB.]

Is anyone up to drawing a net swing map by constituency? I'd be very interested in unpacking the patterns there.

Swing not particularly meaningful this election given the UKIP collapse and the mobilisation of the student vote.

I know that that's likely what we would see in a swing map, but why isn't it interesting to see?

I posted a link to one, in case you missed it.

[136or142]

I normally don't like to generalize, but it seems to me British politicians are a cut above all others.

https://twitter.com/NameChangeGirl/status/873533568814907392

Tory MP Nigel Evans: "Only thing missing from our manifesto was compulsory euthanasia for over 70s!"


Also, the news that Nick Timothy resigned as Theresa May's Chief of Staff broke during the interview, and the interviewer asks him "can Theresa May survive without him?"  and without missing a beat he replies "Yes she can. She couldn't survive with him."