UK General Election, 2017 - Election Day and Results Thread

[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."

I feel like the fight between globalism and nationalism is less of a victory for nationalism than people think. The only victories for the nationalists have been narrow (Trump & Brexit), whereas the globalists have won nearly all election tests, especially since Trump (Netherlands, France, Austria, Labour gains in UK).

The important test will be whether the newly elected globalists acknowledge the valid points of the nationalists and address them, whether that's in finding ways to address that the gains from free trade have gone almost entirely to the top 1% or that immigration (and unrestricted property buying) have lead in some areas to large increases in housing prices.

I think to some degree the Trump era was probably kicked off with Thomas Piketty's book.  The irony is that, in the United States anyway, the response was a vote for mindless (right wing) nationalism with simplistic and ridiculous 'solutions' rather than a vote for a thoughtful response.

[136or142]

Ok. What the hell happened in Hove? Where did all these Lab voters came from?

Not sure, this is the M.P

Peter Kyle (born 9 September 1970) is a British Labour Party politician and former charity sector executive. He has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Hove since the May 2015 general election.[1]

It's funny.  Here in North America the head of a non profit is generally referred to as the Executive Director, and a corporate vice president is called an executive, and it's the opposite in the U.K (vice presidents are called corporate directors).

[136or142]

Ongoing election analysis

World-leading communication research from Loughborough University Centre for Research in Communication and Culture. Analysing #GE2017
https://twitter.com/lboroCRCC

[136or142]

Ok. What the hell happened in Hove? Where did all these Lab voters came from?

Hove is basically indistinguishable from Brighton (especially now that no-one can afford to live in Brighton any more). And Brighton is the San Francisco of England

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

I know Brighton
Brighton was a friend of mine
Hove, you're no Brighton

(sorry)

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[136or142]

Which constituency has the lowest winning vote share? Ceredigion was won with 29.2%; are there constituencies which were won with less than that?

Is that in Wales?