United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:47:22 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)
  United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69
Author Topic: United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019  (Read 136086 times)
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1650 on: December 28, 2019, 09:30:51 AM »

Since 1951 only two Labour leaders have won general elections; Wilson, by appealing to moderates and Tories then governing a little left of that and Blair by appealing to moderates and Tories and governing not so much to the left.

The last transformative government, in terms of leaving a legacy and an imprint on society was Blairs. Only four PM's can claim that legacy since the war; Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair. Three of them Labour.

The solution is simple and obvious. But it's now two defeats away now.

(FWIW I don't include Macmillan as it was continuity 'war coalition/Butskellist.' Cameron is possible, constitutionally, but too early to tell.)

One also might throw in Ted Heath, given that he took Britain into the EEC. Not much he did was of great note, but that alone was pretty significant.
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1651 on: December 28, 2019, 08:48:43 PM »

Three times in the twentieth century the Tories, after having dominated politics for about two decades, were turfed from office in spectacular fashion - facing double-digit swings and losing more than half their MPs.

First, but least-known today, is 1906: the Conservatives had been in power for most of the previous twenty years, but went down to a big swing to the combined Liberal & Labour forces.
From 402 MPs in 1900, the Tories picked up five but lost 251, giving them a net loss of 246 and bringing them down to 156 MPs - their fewest since the 1832 Reform Act.
The Liberals, starting at 183, gained 223 and lost nine, giving them a net gain of 214 and bringing them up to 397. Labour went from two to 29 (gaining 28 but losing one).
A total of 267 seats changed hands - almost 40% of the total.
Swing is difficult to calculate, given the large number (163) of Tory acclamations in 1900, but if one looks only at seats that were contested in both elections it amounts to about 11% from Conservative to Lib-Lab.

Second, and probably still the best-known, is 1945: Tories had run the country for most of the inter-war period, but this finally came to a close with the end of the Second World War. Opinion polls predicted the outcome (in fact, they exaggerated the Labour lead) but most people didn't pay much attention to them.
Gains & losses are a little harder to gauge here, given the semi-redistribution, but a reasonable estimate is that twenty-four of the new seats should be in the Conservative column, and one (Thurrock) in the Labour one.
This gives the Tories 453 MPs going into the election, but they picked up only five while losing 248, bringing them down to 210.
Labour had 155 MPs before the vote, gaining 241 and losing only three, leaving them with 393.
Almost exactly the same number of seats - 266 - changed hands as in 1906, but with a smaller house this amounts to 42% of the total.
There were still some acclamations in 1935 (26 Conservative & 13 Labour), but not nearly as many as in 1900, so the swing - 12% - is much easier to calculate.

Finally, we have 1997, which ended eighteen consecutive years of Tory government (the longest streak in modern times). Just as in 1945, pre-election polls overstated Labour's lead, but an efficient vote and strong anti-Tory tactical voting delivered them a majority comparable to expectations anyway.
There was a redistribution here as well, but notional results were calculated to give the Tories 343 MPs and Labour 273 - not too much change from the actual 1992 figures.
Unlike 1906 & 1945, there were no constituencies that moved in the 'wrong' direction this time: the Conservatives lost 178 seats and gained none, leaving them with 165. Labour picked up 146 and lost none, leaving them with an all-time best of 419.
Fewer seats changed hands here than in 1906 or 1945: 184, or 28% of the total. Still the most since 1945, though.
In keeping with fewer seats changing hands here than in the other two blowout defeats, the swing - 10% - was a little less as well.
Perhaps the biggest difference between this election and the others is that, while in 1910 and 1950 the Conservatives won back a lot of seats and nearly regained power after just one term in opposition, the Tories stayed down - with fewer than 200 MPs and a very low vote share - for more than a decade after the 1997 defeat.

Will public opinion finally boil over in a similar fashion in five or ten years' time? As everyone here keeps saying, a lot will depend on who the new Labour leader is and how the departure from the EU is handled (and with a recession forecast in the near future, the Tories' popularity will probably suffer in the next couple years anyway). But, as 1997 showed, even if the economy is very good, this doesn't guarantee that a government will survive.
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1652 on: December 28, 2019, 09:14:44 PM »

Here's a graph showing turnouts from 1945 to 2019; the color-coding should be pretty self-explanatory, and the vertical line indicates the lowering of the voting age.

Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1653 on: December 29, 2019, 06:18:33 AM »

What happened in 2001? Turnout went down by a lot and has never recovered since
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1654 on: December 29, 2019, 06:37:02 AM »

What happened in 2001? Turnout went down by a lot and has never recovered since

A feeling (correctly) that the result was a foregone conclusion, allied to a more general depoliticisation after Blair's huge 1997 win (local election turnouts also tumbled in the following few years)

This GE ended the upward trend since then, though that may *partly* be down to when it was held.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1655 on: December 29, 2019, 07:17:19 AM »

As well as that there has also been a clear structural decline in turnout following the departure of the Wartime generation, which was unusually political for fairly obvious reasons. As well as being much more partisan than subsequent generations, so electoral volatility has increased as well.
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1656 on: January 03, 2020, 01:52:37 AM »
« Edited: January 03, 2020, 02:02:52 AM by DistingFlyer »

Here's a map indicating both constituencies that changed hands and marginals that didn't (or, to put it another way, all marginals as well as non-marginals that changed hands).

The picture on the left shows the pre-election situation, and the one on the right shows the 2019 results. Constituencies aren't shaded according to my usual system, but simply colored according to marginal (<10%), moderate (10-25%) or safe (>25%).

If nothing else, it can provide a useful quick-glance guide as to how different parts of the country shifted.




To compare/contrast, here's one for the last election:


Here's one for 1997:


And here's one for 1979:
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1657 on: January 09, 2020, 07:54:54 AM »

A similar chart to what I put up earlier; this one, instead of comparing the swing to gains made as a % of marginals, compares the swing to the so-called 'effective swing' - that is, the swing that would notionally provide the number of net gains that actually were made (for instance, the 144th most vulnerable Tory-Labour seat in 1997 needed a 12.4% swing for it to fall, while the 53rd most vulnerable Labour-Tory seat in 2019 needed a 5.6% swing).

The graph produces very similar - though not exactly the same - results as the earlier one.

Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1658 on: January 09, 2020, 11:49:25 AM »

What the two almost identical outcomes in the bottom corner?
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1659 on: January 09, 2020, 12:28:39 PM »

What the two almost identical outcomes in the bottom corner?

1951 & 1959.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1660 on: January 09, 2020, 12:48:08 PM »


So where's 1955? Wink
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1661 on: January 09, 2020, 01:28:26 PM »


Have never seen notional 1951 results on the new boundaries, so didn't include it. Originally didn't put in February 1974 until I finally found some redistributed 1970 figures.
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1662 on: January 09, 2020, 05:24:31 PM »

Looking at cumulative swings, here is a map showing the accumulated Tory-Labour swing from 1997 to 2019. Have only included England & Wales, given the rise of the SNP in Scotland.



Here's one illustrating the accumulated swing as it differs from the overall national swing over the same time (12.3%):
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1663 on: January 09, 2020, 08:49:50 PM »

Looking at cumulative swings, here is a map showing the accumulated Tory-Labour swing from 1997 to 2019. Have only included England & Wales, given the rise of the SNP in Scotland.



Here's one illustrating the accumulated swing as it differs from the overall national swing over the same time (12.3%):


Any reason why Merseyside is the one area to swing towards Labour?  it seems Liverpool area has a viscereal hatred of Tories and votes more heavily Labour than anywhere else.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1664 on: January 09, 2020, 09:12:44 PM »
« Edited: January 09, 2020, 09:17:54 PM by Trends are real, and I f**king hate it »

I assume you mean that the first map is swing and the second one is trend? It would be easier on us if we all stuck to Atlas lingo on this.

Also, I'd be very interested in seeing swing maps from 2010 and 1992, both elections that had more comparable Tory margins.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1665 on: January 09, 2020, 09:17:42 PM »

Looking at cumulative swings, here is a map showing the accumulated Tory-Labour swing from 1997 to 2019. Have only included England & Wales, given the rise of the SNP in Scotland.



Here's one illustrating the accumulated swing as it differs from the overall national swing over the same time (12.3%):


Any reason why Merseyside is the one area to swing towards Labour?  it seems Liverpool area has a viscereal hatred of Tories and votes more heavily Labour than anywhere else.

They don't read the sun, and the popular paper is the daily mirror.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1666 on: January 10, 2020, 05:36:41 AM »

Sun readers often "trend" to the Daily Mail when older, so Merseyside is mostly spared that as well.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1667 on: January 10, 2020, 09:50:14 AM »

Sometimes we can forget the obvious because it is almost too obvious: Boris Johnson has repeatedly made unpleasant remarks about Liverpool over the years, and this fact is not unknown in the city or the wider region.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1668 on: January 10, 2020, 11:57:19 AM »

I'd be hesistant to overstate the influence of the tabloids. That is, the vast majority of non-geriatrics read neither the Sun nor the Mirror, and their continued influence broadly comes down to their ability to set the agenda that the rest of the media (TV news in particular) follow. And it's not as if Scousers are less inclined to watch TV...

Possibly you also have some degree of the impact of Thatcherism on the city, including the way that her government responded to Hillsborough; the final decline and death of Northern Ireland inspired Protestant Unionism as a relevant force in the city; even the fact it is a port city (you know, superficial similarities with Bristol here) with a very distinct identity. I'm not sure in any case, just speculating.

In that respect, it's also interesting that even after the much talked about disaster in December; both Lancashire and Yorkshire as a whole seem to have still trended left relative to 1997.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1669 on: January 10, 2020, 01:33:03 PM »

Yes, one thing that's often missed is that working-class Toryism was a meaningful phenomenon up until 1992 at the very latest - in some places, it wasn't really swept away at a local level until the rise of UKIP (and in other places it actually provided the bulk of the pre-2010 Lib Dem vote.) It wasn't in exactly the same places as where the Tories gained in 2019 (though there is some overlap), but arguably the voters they've gained now look quite demographically similar to working-class Tories from three decades ago
Logged
Farmlands
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,181
Portugal


Political Matrix
E: 0.77, S: -0.14

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1670 on: January 10, 2020, 06:23:08 PM »

I'd be hesistant to overstate the influence of the tabloids. That is, the vast majority of non-geriatrics read neither the Sun nor the Mirror, and their continued influence broadly comes down to their ability to set the agenda that the rest of the media (TV news in particular) follow. And it's not as if Scousers are less inclined to watch TV...

When it comes to television, I've noticed BBC in particular being singled out the most during this election, for slanted coverage towards the Conservatives, by several Labour activists. Of course, the other side of the political aisle has been saying the exact opposite for years, so, if anything, that only makes me believe it's an unbiased station even more.
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1671 on: January 10, 2020, 06:24:30 PM »

How come Staffordshire has seen a much harder swing to right.  It seems Tory vote there has soared and in Stoke on Trent almost tripled in last decade.  During Blair era, Tories languished in teens there, now they are getting over 50% there.  While you've seen other shifts, I don't believe any quite as dramatic.  Only other I can think of is Durham County but being quite rural and white, Tory share of the vote seemed unusually low for its demographics.
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1672 on: January 11, 2020, 12:38:35 AM »
« Edited: January 11, 2020, 12:52:20 AM by DistingFlyer »

Here are swing/trend maps for all six elections (2001 through 2019) that were represented cumulatively in the previous maps.


2001 - overall swing 1.8% to Conservatives


2005 - 3.2% to Conservatives


2010 - 5.1% to Conservatives (Scotland saw a small Labour swing, which meant that most areas in England & Wales saw above-average Tory swings)


2015 - 0.4% to Labour


2017 - 2.0% to Labour


2019 - 4.6% to Conservatives



East Sussex & Merseyside trended toward Labour each time, while Essex & Lincolnshire trended away.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1673 on: January 11, 2020, 07:28:07 AM »

How come Staffordshire has seen a much harder swing to right.  It seems Tory vote there has soared and in Stoke on Trent almost tripled in last decade.  During Blair era, Tories languished in teens there, now they are getting over 50% there.  While you've seen other shifts, I don't believe any quite as dramatic.  Only other I can think of is Durham County but being quite rural and white, Tory share of the vote seemed unusually low for its demographics.

This, perhaps?
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1674 on: January 11, 2020, 10:30:34 AM »
« Edited: January 11, 2020, 10:38:10 AM by DistingFlyer »

Here are ones for 1983 through 1997:


1983 - 4.1% overall swing to Conservatives


1987 - 1.8% to Labour


1992 - 2.1% to Labour (as with 2010, Scotland swung in the opposite direction to the rest of Britain, so most of England & Wales gets an above-average swing)


1997 - 10.3% to Labour
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69  
« 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 0.054 seconds with 10 queries.