UK General Election 2019 - Election Day and Results Thread

[CumbrianLefty]

Now we get the best part of the election process: Dogs at Polling Stations!

Given its the middle of winter, maybe not as many as usual?

[CumbrianLefty]

We're not in America. Stop comparing this to the democrats.

Sure.  But places like Putney and Canterbury going to LAB while the North shifting to CON looks a awful like VA and CO going to Dems while WI PA and MI moving toward GOP.

But the Northwest and Northeast of England actually have had decades of socialist tradition...they didn't fail to vote for Corbyn's Labour Party purely out of ideology. A left-wing leader with a clear opinion on Brexit and with a clear agenda to combat and expel anti-semitic/hateful members of the party would have done well, I think. It's just that Corbyn came across as so weak on so many issues except fighting austerity, which is an issue that voters had already made their minds up on.

I don't buy that at all. Corbyn's "antisemitism" turned out voters and many of them voted CON because they're known antiracist party. Not lib dems, not green, but for torries, yeah right. LD result shows how much this election was about Corbyn and how much about Brexit. I mean it's pretty clear that people wanted to leave and only Cons had a real message to get that done. Every other take is just more anti Corbyn's bias.

There's a reason why Bury North & Golders Green voted for the Conservatives- because the Jewish community had real fears about what Prime Minister Corbyn would mean. The one thing that cut through this election was Ian Austin saying it really is about who you would rather have as PM- if you vote Green or Lib Dem you're giving up that chance to stop Corbyn.

South, my friend.

[CumbrianLefty]

In reply to the above query, Labour lost a few Scottish deposits at the 2015 GE.

[CumbrianLefty]

Not much to say about the results, other than I expected it (even a slightly larger Conservative majority).

Weird that turnout was just 67% and dropping compared with 2017.

You should probably never go with the stupid Election Day reports of „long lines“ ...

With significantly higher turnout there probably would have been a hung parliament again, because no suppressed Labour vote.

That’s not how things work ...

With a higher turnout, th Conservatives could have also won by an even bigger margin.

In recent years, former SD voters have started to vote Conservative, as they are no longer „workers“ anymore, but have moved into white-collar professions ...

Unlikely when you look at the seats which had the biggest turnout drops.

Indeed there is a pattern forming here:

2015, 2019 - voting levels fail to live up to the hype on the day, and the Tories win;

2010, 2017 - turnout is "higher than expected" and there is a "surprise" hung parliament.

Based on that sequence.......

[CumbrianLefty]

Turnout hasn't often borne much correlation to how well Tories or Labour do - for instance, turnout was consistently higher during the Thatcher & Major years than the Blair-Brown ones. It also - before the more recent elections - tended to be higher in Conservative seats than in Labour areas, and the highest-turnout election in modern times (1992) saw the Tories - not Labour - do much better than polls expected.

How would those Labour voters who stayed home in previously loyal constituencies have voted? No way to know, of course, but the idea that Labour was defeated by low turnout or 'suppressed votes' (who exactly was doing the suppressing?) I just don't find believable. Certainly the opinion polls pointed almost exactly to yesterday's outcome, so it seems unlikely that turnout rates disproportionately benefited one side or the other.

Its not true that there is "no" relation. Low turnouts *tend* to favour the Tories and always have done whereas higher ones mean the pro-Labour demographics tend to vote in bigger numbers. Though a qualifier here is that *very* high turnouts tend to favour the right again - in the 1992 GE as you say and also the 2016 EU referendum (*may* have helped "no" in the 2014 ScotIndy vote as well)

[CumbrianLefty]

Bbc reporting that Labor northern  parliamentary party want Lisa Nandy to run or Yvette Cooper (both northern heartlands) Anyone from London won’t work to retain loses.

Are Lisa Nandy or Yvette Cooper credible opposition?

Nandy had a decent result this time in the circs, Cooper (generally very overrated anyway) didn't.

And arguably Angela Rayner "ticks those boxes" better than either of them.

[CumbrianLefty]

There is really not the slightest chance of Burgon winning, this is not serious commentary.

[CumbrianLefty]

There is really not the slightest chance of Burgon winning, this is not serious commentary.

Someone like Burgon. Or definitely a Corbynite.

"Corbynites" arguably come in more than one flavour (does Rayner count as one, for example? It depends)

[CumbrianLefty]

Well, part of it is that the Nats only won it by 2 votes last time

[CumbrianLefty]

Overall regional lead figures:

North - Tories trail by 4% (best since 1959)
Midlands - Tories ahead by 22% (best since 1931)
London - Tories trail by 16% (better than 2017, but not much else)
rest of South - Tories lead by 31% (best since 1931)
Wales - Tories trail by 5% (best since 1859)
Scotland - Tories trail by 20% (worse than 2017, but best showing vis-a-vis Labour (6.5% lead) since 1935)

Despite all those "best since the 1930s", the overall Tory lead over Labour in 1983 was significantly bigger than now (and 1987 was almost identical) And of course the seat majority is smaller than both.

[CumbrianLefty]

Hmmm, tbh I remain to be convinced by that. You have to accept Osborne "stuffing the pensioners mouths with gold" has had a major electoral effect, for example?

[CumbrianLefty]

If another independence bid ultimately fails, then there could as a consequence be a historic crash in SNP support similar to 1979 (or indeed Scottish Labour's in 2015) Quebec is not of course the same as Scotland, but certainly suggests this is possible.

[CumbrianLefty]

True, but the SNP were to many something scary and threatening back then - they maybe aren't so much now given that the presence of a substantial bloc of them in Westminster is more established.

[CumbrianLefty]

I can't help but think that ignoring non-voters really weakens the meaning of all that YouGov stuff

Turnouts were down in a lot of the seats that Labour lost (and nearly lost) Any analysis of the results that doesn't take that into account isn't a wholly convincing one.

[CumbrianLefty]

As far as Liverpool is concerned, the hostility to the MSM in general (and the Sun in particular) has to be a factor I would have thought (and Sun readers often gravitate to the Mail in later life, too)

[CumbrianLefty]

The initial BBC projections haven't always been right on, but their track record is pretty good overall:

2017 - projected Tories short by 12 (actually short by 8 )
2015 - projected Tories short by 10 (actually a majority of 12)
2010 - projected Tories short by 19 (correct)
2005 - projected a Labour majority of 66 (correct)
2001 - projected a Labour majority of c.160 (actually a majority of 167)
1997 - projected a Labour majority of c.175 (actually a majority of 179)
1992 - projected Tories short by 25 (actually a majority of 21)
1987 - projected a Tory majority of 26 (actually a majority of 102)
1983 - projected a Tory majority of 146 (actually a majority of 144)

(They didn't provide an exact figure in 1997 & 2001, giving just a rough estimate.)

They were rather off in 1987 & 1992, but otherwise were pretty close on all the rest (though you can debate if their 2015 exit poll was 'close' or not, I suppose).

1997 the BBC didn't broadcast the forecast but it was for a 209 LAbour majority and in 2001 they did broadcast seat numbers and the precise majority forecast was 157.I can give details of ITN if anyone likes and details for both channels prior to 1983

The BBC forecast in 1997 was also for a 47-29 Labour lead in the GB popular vote (as opposed to the 44-31 margin that actually transpired) IIRC this overestimate may have been down to also predicting a turnout similar to 1992, when in fact it actually dropped seven points to 71%.

[CumbrianLefty]

It is maybe understandable that some Tory voters were a bit "shy" in 1997......

It really hasn't been a thing in more recent GEs though (2015 was for other reasons)

[CumbrianLefty]

That and not forecasting the drop in turnout (with safe Labour seats especially)

[CumbrianLefty]

Walsall South also has a significant non-white population.

(and I think most voters locally will be aware that their MP is not a WASP)

[CumbrianLefty]

So parties that come to power usually have above average swings in marginals - 1979 a notable exception.