Al's Blog

Income and the 2008 London elections

Al — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:42:31 +0000

Just been messing around with some experimental income statistics (last census here didn’t collect any income data so some people worked out a model. Probably not all that accurate, but fun anyway) and ward-level results from the London elections. Perfectly normal behavior I’m sure. Anyway, I looked at the data set that had weekly household income fiddled around with to take into account housing costs and so on and compared to the aforementioned ward-level election results. Following shows the number of wards in each income bracket won by each candidate (first prefs only)…

£ 800+, Johnson 10, Livingstone 0
£ 650-800, Johnson 32, Livingstone 1
£550-650, Johnson 58, Livingstone 7
£500-550, Johnson 50, Livingstone 9
£450-500, Johnson 79, Livingstone 23
£400-450, Johnson 54, Livingstone 53
£350-400, Johnson 36, Livingstone 80
£300-350, Johnson 13, Livingstone 73
£200-300, Johnson 2, Livingstone 43

And now for the list vote…

£ 800+, Con 10, Lab 0
£ 650-800, Con 32, LDem 1
£550-650, Con 62, Lab 2, LDem 1
£500-550, Con 51, Lab 7, Green 1
£450-500, Con 81, Lab 21
£400-450, Con 57, Lab 50
£350-400, Con 28, Lab 82, BNP 6
£300-350, Con 6, Lab 77, BNP 2, LDem 1
£200-300, Con 1, Lab 44

Wards that voted Johnson for Mayor and Labour for the (list) GLA break down like this:

£450-500: 2
£400-450: 1
£350-400: 2
£300-350: 5
£200-300: 1

And wards that voted Livingstone for Mayor and Tory for the list (GLA) break down like this:

£550-650: 5
£500-550: 1
£450-500: 4
£400-450: 5

All wards that went BNP on the list voted for Johnson, all wards that went Liberal or Green on the list voted for Livingstone. Small mistakes in the data be possible. Anyway, this is all just the raw data; the interpretation is left up to the reader (for now at least).

London, 2008

Al — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:23:42 +0000

A ward map of the 2008 London Mayoral election;

There’s so much that could be said and written about many of the patterns in the map and of the causes of Livingstone’s defeat. But here’s something written a quarter of a century ago that sums things up quite well;

“The danger, especially on the left, is not only that activists may be unaware of their and the party’s isolation from ordinary people, but that they may not care. They may actually give up the struggle for the workers as a whole, not to mention other sections of the people who do not happen to agree with the ‘correct’ policy or the way the party is run. They may choose their supporters to fit their convictions, in which case it is likely that others will look elsewhere. For instance, they may see their most congenial constituency as ‘the dispossessed’, ‘the centre of a big decaying city’, cosmopolitan and racially mixed, and look for a parliamentary seat in preference in such a place. ‘It would be a mistake to stand in a safe seat with a solid white skilled working class… I wouldn’t be happy there anyway’ (Ken Livingstone). Would it be surprising if the sort of people who have formed the ‘historic spine of the Labour Party’ would not be happy with such a candidate either? The strength of the labour movement has always been that it could represent all parts of the working class - both Stepney and the Fife coalfield - and it did not discriminate against any. If Ken Livingstone, who is one of the ablest, most prominent, most attractive and strategically placed figures in the party, feels really at ease with only some kinds of the inhabitants of Greater London - is it not reasonable to fear that it will be difficult for him to realize his own and his party’s political potential in Britain’s greatest city?”

Eric Hobsbawm, Labour’s Lost Millions, 1983

Oh, Pembrokeshire… I love you, but you’re so corrupt…

Al — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:59:43 +0000

Read and weep:

http://freespace.virgin.net/oldgrumpy.mike/April%208%202008.html

http://freespace.virgin.net/oldgrumpy.mike/May%206%202008.html

Municipal Elections in Wales party, uh, three I think…

Al — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:14:23 +0000

Hope the maps show up alright (edit: some tweaking needed, but at least they show). On the left winning party for each ward (except in cases where the ward was split between an independent and someone from an official party) on the right all the wards that elected at least one independent are shown in light grey. Mistakes possible (and more likely on the latter map than the former). In some respects these sorts of maps aren’t all that useful (party vote maps being much more interesting) but you have to start somewhere…

Old House Results Maps IV: West Virginia 1972-2006

Al — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:47:00 +0000

Old House Results Maps III: Pennsylvania 1992-2006

Al — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:34:44 +0000

Old House Results Maps II: Georgia 1982-2004

Al — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:31:32 +0000

One more thing; the maps come without initial comment by me. I might comment on them later and I’ve no objection to people using leaving their own comments about them here (quite the reverse actually).

Old House Results Maps I: the Introduction and Key

Al — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:27:22 +0000

A while ago I made a load of maps of old House of Representative elections (outline maps taken from all over the place; quite a few from this very site actually) and I made a few more recently (when I wasn’t very well and couldn’t concentrate on any real work but felt like doing something other than spending all day in bed) and thought I might as well put them up here. Pennsylvania and Georgia first. But before that, the key;

The maps will be by percentage majority (or percentage lead if you prefer). Mistakes (both in the maps and in the way the results be shown on them) are possible, sadly.

How accurate are official results? Part I

Al — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:53:51 +0000

The following anecdote is from an excellent little book (actually a collection of essays) of Irving Howe’s (“Socialism and America”) and concerns the 1932 Presidential election:
“Harry Fleischman, a socialist leader, tells a story, not at all unusual, about serving as poll watcher in a Bronx district. When the votes were counted, there were six for the Communist Party, and since no communist watcher was present, the Republican and Democratic local agents proposed that the six votes be split equally among the three parties. Good democrat that he was, Fleischman indignantly refused. Later it occured to him that if he hadn’t been there the socialist vote might also have been “redistributed”.

Official results for the Bronx in 1932:

F. Roosevelt, D, 281,330
H. Hoover, R, 76,587
N.Thomas, Socialist, 31,247
W.Foster, Communist, 8,829
V. Reynolds, Socialist Labor, 1,926

New Hampshire town maps

Al — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:42:11 +0000

Just noticed that Dave has uploaded town-level maps of the recent New Hampshire primaries. It’s worth comparing the results of the 2008 Democratic primary with those of the 2004 Democratic primary:

While there are certainly similar patterns in both maps (Dean and Obama both did well on the border with Vermont, Clinton and Kerry both did well on the border with Massachusetts), there are some significant differences. I would go so far as to say that the differences are significant enough to indicate that the social basis of support for the top two candidates in 2008 was, at least in part, quite different to the social basis of support for the top two candidates in 2004.