UK General Election, 2017 - Election Day and Results Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:05:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  UK General Election, 2017 - Election Day and Results Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73
Author Topic: UK General Election, 2017 - Election Day and Results Thread  (Read 144837 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1775 on: June 28, 2017, 05:57:17 PM »

Party results in England since 1945 (source):



Tories back to Major levels, Labour back to Blair levels (and Libs back to early Thorpe levels Tongue).
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1776 on: June 28, 2017, 07:28:40 PM »

Probably the best speech I have heard from any politician in a long time (I am referring to the part where she talks about how the parliament, including all rules and tradition reek of the establishment).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPBbkpcPXBg
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1777 on: June 28, 2017, 08:50:05 PM »

Probably the best speech I have heard from any politician in a long time (I am referring to the part where she talks about how the parliament, including all rules and tradition reek of the establishment).

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

England is like Westeros: the only part of it that's not totally culturally abhorrent is the North. Wink
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,576
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1778 on: June 29, 2017, 03:22:45 AM »

Probably the best speech I have heard from any politician in a long time (I am referring to the part where she talks about how the parliament, including all rules and tradition reek of the establishment).

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

England is like Westeros: the only part of it that's not totally culturally abhorrent is the North. Wink

And there's the one likable southerner who's universally demonised.
Logged
MAINEiac4434
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,269
France


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1779 on: June 30, 2017, 12:42:22 PM »

Probably the best speech I have heard from any politician in a long time (I am referring to the part where she talks about how the parliament, including all rules and tradition reek of the establishment).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPBbkpcPXBg
Utterly fantastic. Future cabinet material right there.
Logged
Rob Bloom
Mirendorff
Rookie
**
Posts: 65
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1780 on: July 01, 2017, 08:37:45 AM »
« Edited: July 01, 2017, 09:47:20 AM by Rob Bloom »

Here is a hypothetic and yet intriguing question: Suppose the UK has a similiar system as France - only candidates with an overall majority would secure their seat in the first ballot, while for every other race there would be a run-off with the two leading candidates. How would the votes of the other candidates have split?

How would LibDem, UKIP and Green voters have voted in a Tory/Labour run-off?
My presumption (completely out of the blue) is as follows: LibDems would have voted 40% Tory/45% Labour/15% abstain; UKIPpers would have voted 55% Tories/20% Labour/25 % abstain; Greens would have voted 10% Tories/80% Labour/10% abstain.

Also, how would Labour voters have split in a Con/LD run-off? My guess is 65% LD/20% Con/15% abstain

And what about Tory voters in a Lab/LD race? I'd say 55% LD/35% Lab/10% abstain. The LD number would of course be higher if it weren't for Brexit.

Of course I'm just an observer from outside - does anybody with more insight in English politics think this could be accurate?
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1781 on: July 01, 2017, 12:53:39 PM »
« Edited: July 01, 2017, 12:56:44 PM by ⚑ Comrade Corbyn for PM ⚑ »

Here is a hypothetic and yet intriguing question: Suppose the UK has a similiar system as France - only candidates with an overall majority would secure their seat in the first ballot, while for every other race there would be a run-off with the two leading candidates. How would the votes of the other candidates have split?

How would LibDem, UKIP and Green voters have voted in a Tory/Labour run-off?
My presumption (completely out of the blue) is as follows: LibDems would have voted 40% Tory/45% Labour/15% abstain; UKIPpers would have voted 55% Tories/20% Labour/25 % abstain; Greens would have voted 10% Tories/80% Labour/10% abstain.

Also, how would Labour voters have split in a Con/LD run-off? My guess is 65% LD/20% Con/15% abstain

And what about Tory voters in a Lab/LD race? I'd say 55% LD/35% Lab/10% abstain. The LD number would of course be higher if it weren't for Brexit.

Of course I'm just an observer from outside - does anybody with more insight in English politics think this could be accurate?

I think Labour voters in most Con/Lib run-offs would be even more generous to Liberals, and vice versa with Conservative voters in Lab/Lib run-offs than your predictions - a Liberal in parliament is one less MP for their opposition to form a government with. In an election defined by hard-Brexit most Liberals will be breaking to Labour.

UKIP breaks about 50% Tory, 25% Labour and 25% abstain from what I've seen and heard - but there's huge difference depending on the seat. Look at Stockton South in the N/E - UKIP collapse but of zero benefit to the Tories, so it doesn't lend itself to simplistic predictions unfortunately.

Logged
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.42, S: 1.82

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1782 on: July 09, 2017, 08:45:45 AM »

Opinion poll graph since 1943 I made.

Beware if you open it if you have a slug computer like mine. The file is moderately large.

http://orig01.deviantart.net/a05d/f/2017/190/3/1/1943_2017_graph_of_uk_polls_by_thumboy21-dbfnp07.png

Source:
https://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1783 on: July 09, 2017, 10:48:21 AM »

2010-2014 stands out in just how many polls were commissioned.
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1784 on: July 09, 2017, 11:37:57 AM »

Opinion poll graph since 1943 I made.

Beware if you open it if you have a slug computer like mine. The file is moderately large.

http://orig01.deviantart.net/a05d/f/2017/190/3/1/1943_2017_graph_of_uk_polls_by_thumboy21-dbfnp07.png

Source:
https://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/

Awesome!  I'm intrigued by the period in 1981 when the Liberals were actually ahead in the polls.  Wow.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1785 on: July 09, 2017, 11:42:36 AM »

Opinion poll graph since 1943 I made.

Beware if you open it if you have a slug computer like mine. The file is moderately large.

http://orig01.deviantart.net/a05d/f/2017/190/3/1/1943_2017_graph_of_uk_polls_by_thumboy21-dbfnp07.png

Source:
https://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/

On thing that was always weird to me was that the 1945 result was considered a shock.  It seems that in 1943-1945 LAB was well ahead of CON in the polls but it seems that the Churchill and CON were convinced that they would win.  I assume the reason for this was that  Churchill was convinced the personal vote for him would overcome the party poll deficit. 
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,563
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1786 on: July 09, 2017, 11:59:43 AM »

The polls weren't really covered in 1945 in any depth - the assumption was that Churchill, the great war leader, would win the election when in reality the electorate remembered how the (Tory-dominated) Coalition didn't fufill their commitments post-WW1; so they didn't trust the Tories pledge to implement the Beveridge report - plus also Labour had proved themselves in the eyes of many in 1945 to be a sensible governing party due to their involvement in the war time government - there are still areas that voted Labour in 1945 that never have since.

1981 was the height of Alliance-mania: the Tory government was incredibly unpopular (sky high unemployment, they were still 100% committed to full Monetarism which really didn't work and they began to move away from it before the 83 election); Labour were busy in factional warfare (with Militant being the thing that the Press would continually talk about) so the centrist Liberal/SDP Alliance appeared like the only credible option.  They declined for a few reasons: the Falklands War and the aftermath thereof created a big rally round the flag affect for the government; plus by 1983 the Alliance wasn't this shiny new thing in anywhere near the same way as it was; so voters began to move back to the big two.   They still did incredibly well in terms of vote share with 25.4% (higher than any centre party has managed since the 1920s); but it was incredibly uniformly distributed so they only managed to win 20 seats - while Labour who got barely two percent more (27.6%) managed to win 200 seats.  Shows the stupidity of FPTP in anything more than a pure two-party system, really...
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1787 on: July 09, 2017, 12:32:49 PM »

Opinion poll graph since 1943 I made.

Beware if you open it if you have a slug computer like mine. The file is moderately large.

http://orig01.deviantart.net/a05d/f/2017/190/3/1/1943_2017_graph_of_uk_polls_by_thumboy21-dbfnp07.png

Source:
https://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/

Awesome!  I'm intrigued by the period in 1981 when the Liberals were actually ahead in the polls.  Wow.

Brought about by the creation of, and alliance with, the SDP. High profile former cabinet ministers from Labour who were 'moderates' and therefore able to win votes from all parties (although inevitably hit Labour vote hardest - interesting to note Labour under Foot were leading in the polls until the arrival of the SDP).
Logged
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.42, S: 1.82

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1788 on: July 09, 2017, 12:53:37 PM »

2010-2014 stands out in just how many polls were commissioned.

True, and ironically it was also a polling disaster.
Logged
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.42, S: 1.82

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1789 on: July 09, 2017, 12:55:33 PM »

Opinion poll graph since 1943 I made.

Beware if you open it if you have a slug computer like mine. The file is moderately large.

http://orig01.deviantart.net/a05d/f/2017/190/3/1/1943_2017_graph_of_uk_polls_by_thumboy21-dbfnp07.png

Source:
https://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/

Awesome!  I'm intrigued by the period in 1981 when the Liberals were actually ahead in the polls.  Wow.

Yeah. Also interesting how the Conservatives were able to go from 3rd place to leading by a landslide almost overnight. I bet Theresa May is begging for a Falklands moment.
Logged
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.42, S: 1.82

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1790 on: July 09, 2017, 12:56:43 PM »

Opinion poll graph since 1943 I made.

Beware if you open it if you have a slug computer like mine. The file is moderately large.

http://orig01.deviantart.net/a05d/f/2017/190/3/1/1943_2017_graph_of_uk_polls_by_thumboy21-dbfnp07.png

Source:
https://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/

On thing that was always weird to me was that the 1945 result was considered a shock.  It seems that in 1943-1945 LAB was well ahead of CON in the polls but it seems that the Churchill and CON were convinced that they would win.  I assume the reason for this was that  Churchill was convinced the personal vote for him would overcome the party poll deficit. 

Yeah. I recall his approval ratings were something like 80%. If a modern politician had that they would be Supreme Leader for life!
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1791 on: July 10, 2017, 05:19:21 AM »

Great work! It really shows the dramatic rise of Corbyn during the last election. Perhaps ironically, the only other improvement in any party's performance in the entire graph is Thatcher's post-Falklands (Malvinas?) recovery. Can't imagine either side would appreciate that comparison very much, though Tongue
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1792 on: July 10, 2017, 05:30:20 AM »

Opinion poll graph since 1943 I made.

Beware if you open it if you have a slug computer like mine. The file is moderately large.

http://orig01.deviantart.net/a05d/f/2017/190/3/1/1943_2017_graph_of_uk_polls_by_thumboy21-dbfnp07.png

Source:
https://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/

On thing that was always weird to me was that the 1945 result was considered a shock.  It seems that in 1943-1945 LAB was well ahead of CON in the polls but it seems that the Churchill and CON were convinced that they would win.  I assume the reason for this was that  Churchill was convinced the personal vote for him would overcome the party poll deficit.  

The reason was that virtually no one either knew about polls back then or if they did then they didn't care what they were showing. Opinion polling only began here in 1943 and didn't really become a key player in British political life until the 1960s.
Logged
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.42, S: 1.82

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1793 on: July 10, 2017, 02:42:58 PM »

Great work! It really shows the dramatic rise of Corbyn during the last election. Perhaps ironically, the only other improvement in any party's performance in the entire graph is Thatcher's post-Falklands (Malvinas?) recovery. Can't imagine either side would appreciate that comparison very much, though Tongue
Thanks!
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1794 on: July 10, 2017, 10:24:51 PM »

I just got my hands on a detailed spreadsheet from Britain elects: https://t.co/N68zk7FzSm

I did a bit of analysis to check a suspicion I've had about the relationship between Brexit and the swing in the general election.

My hypothesis: If a RIGHT vs LEFT swing was calculated instead of CON vs LAB, it would eliminate the correlation between Brexit and swing, since it would take into account UKIP's collapse.

I calculate the Left-Right swing as (change in CON+UKIP-LAB-LD-SNP-GRN-PC vote share)/2.
ie. CON and UKIP on the right and LAB, LD, SNP, GRN, PC on the left.
It's debatable whether LD should be included in the left but I felt under Farron they were left of centre. I wouldn't have included them as left under Clegg.

I plotted the results, and it seems to confirm my hypothesis:



In fact Brexit and a swing to the right are slightly negatively correlated, and the correlation is still close to zero if you remove Scotland.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1795 on: July 10, 2017, 10:40:35 PM »

I think the best way to interpret my findings isn't "Labour has no problems with its leave voters", it's rather "Labour's problem with its leave voters began before Corbyn's leadership".

There are tons of Labour leave seats could have been lost in 2015 if the Conservatives had a relatively nationalist leader and UKIP was not a factor, so it was impressive that Labour held almost all of them in 2017 when the Conservatives had a relatively nationalist leader and UKIP was not a factor.
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1796 on: July 11, 2017, 05:19:23 AM »

It's debatable whether LD should be included in the left but I felt under Farron they were left of centre. I wouldn't have included them as left under Clegg.

But this ignores that despite the Lib Dems positioning back to the social liberal wing, they still remain toxic to the broader left following the coalition. That isn't to say they haven't won some left-wing votes back in the minority of seats where they're the only show in town, but that their voter composition is/was likely no more left-wing than it was in the 2015 GE despite the change of leadership.
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1797 on: July 13, 2017, 08:10:28 PM »

Election retrospectives are quite often useless exercises in 20/20 hindsight, but I'd be interested in hearing the reaction to this article from some of the Labour activists I seem to recall being on the thread.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1798 on: July 16, 2017, 07:41:35 AM »

One thought I had about this election is that there was a consensus that  Brown should have called an election after the 2007 Labour conference.  Failure to do so dogged him the next few years and setup defeat in 2010.  Perhaps given what happen to May in 2017 how Brown handled or should have handled the  2007 Labour conference might now be viewed differently?
Logged
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.42, S: 1.82

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1799 on: July 16, 2017, 05:42:51 PM »

One thought I had about this election is that there was a consensus that  Brown should have called an election after the 2007 Labour conference.  Failure to do so dogged him the next few years and setup defeat in 2010.  Perhaps given what happen to May in 2017 how Brown handled or should have handled the  2007 Labour conference might now be viewed differently?

I doubt it.

Brown still should have called an election, even with this hindsight. Theresa May's decision to call the election was not in itself a mistake, it was pretty much a no brainer, the mistake was her historically bad campaign where she had nothing good to say on the economy, her only strength being Brexit, that combined with the very good campaign of Jeremy Corbyn. It's unlikely that such a disparity in campaign quality would occur in 2007.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 12 queries.