UK General Election 2019 - Election Day and Results Thread

[jaichind]

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.

[LabourJersey]

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.

[jaichind]

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.

So you think if LAB were led by, say, Ed Millband, the LAB loses up North would have been minor?   

[Blair]

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.

Michigan and Pennsylvania have a huge African-American community... something British seats like Blyth Valley & Sedgefield certainly don't.

These are seats that have virtually never elected the Conservatives to even run bin collections in the local councils, let alone represent them in Parliament, whilst those states have willing voted republican congressman/governors and senators multiple times in the last 20 years.
 
The 'North' is not shifting the Tories- ex industrial towns and ex-mining villages have seen the Labour vote crash, whilst the Tories have got stronger. There are still plenty of cities in the North that elect Labour MPs.

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.

So you think if LAB were led by, say, Ed Millband, the LAB loses up North would have been minor?   

Yes- see 2015 as an example of where northern marginals were lost; but the rock solid Labour seats held since the 1980s didn't fall through.

[ilikeverin]

Anyone have a narrative summary of the NI results? I see the changes, but don't really know the best way to interpret the vote totals nor what those changes mean

[jaichind]

The fall of LAB+LDEM in Scotland is just amazing.  They went from a combined vote share of 60.9% in 2010 to 28.1% in 2019.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Anyone have a narrative summary of the NI results? I see the changes, but don't really know the best way to interpret the vote totals nor what those changes mean

Huge blow to the DUP (a double blow as they lose their influence in Westminster as well, meaning there will more likely than not be a border in the Irish Sea), losing North and South Belfast as well as falling back in their strongholds like Antrim and failing to take Hermon's old seat of North Down. They just held on W Belfast, but that itself is pyrhic as it suggests that seat is vulnerable outside of the specific context that led to it falling in 2010 (i.e. Iris Robinson having an affair with a teenager).

Also very bad for Sinn Fein, who despite their pick-up in N Belfast had their majorities in South Down and West Belfast cut and lost Foyle (Derry) to the SDLP's Collum Eastwood.

Really it's great news all across the board in that province, assuming nobody here is in love with NI's squabbling pair of ultra-corrupt ex-paramilitaries. Some evidence of significant cross-community cooperation to oust the lazy bastards.

[ilikeverin]

Anyone have a narrative summary of the NI results? I see the changes, but don't really know the best way to interpret the vote totals nor what those changes mean

Huge blow to the DUP (a double blow as they lose their influence in Westminster as well, meaning there will more likely than not be a border in the Irish Sea), losing North and South Belfast as well as falling back in their strongholds like Antrim and failing to take Hermon's old seat of North Down. They just held on W Belfast, but that itself is pyrhic as it suggests that seat is vulnerable outside of the specific context that led to it falling in 2010 (i.e. Iris Robinson having an affair with a teenager).

Also very bad for Sinn Fein, who despite their pick-up in N Belfast had their majorities in South Down and West Belfast cut and lost Foyle (Derry) to the SDLP's Collum Eastwood.

Really it's great news all across the board in that province, assuming nobody here is in love with NI's squabbling pair of ultra-corrupt ex-paramilitaries. Some evidence of significant cross-community cooperation to oust the lazy bastards.

Lovely! It seemed optimistic, but it's always good to check.

[bilaps]

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.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

It truly is incredible to see so many bad takes from American pundits after literally every British election.

[Blair]

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.

[vileplume]

The liberal democrats have really hurt Labour in this election.

Serious questions need to asked to why they carried on standing candidates

At the count in Kensington, the voters were horrified (pro-remain) that they have a die-hard leaver representing them because the liberal democrats refused to stand down.

In High Peak, the liberal democrat was sarcastically clapped for letting the Tory in. Even in Blyth Valley (first Tory gain) the Green party were put in the awkward position of trying to explain what the benefit is of splitting the left vote for the tory to win?  

Its totally pointless for the Green Party and Liberal democrats to say that the political system is rotten or broken. You know the rules before the election and if you have zero chance of running and its a swing district then questions need to be asked why are you running in the first place?

if Labour didn't want to have vote splits, it should have approached the Lib-Dems for a pact. But such an action was beyond the pale, especially after defectors hopped over to the Orange side. A lot of people went on BBC and talked about Labour's ambivalence on these issues. The campaign was unaccountably proud, especially in their candidate selection.

There would've been several problems with a LD pact with Labour. It would a) have damaged the Lib Dems further with ex-Tory Remainers by openly linking them to Corbyn and b) wouldn't have actually helped Labour all that much as a substantial minority of Lib Dem voters would preference the Tories over Labour.

[DC Al Fine]

The liberal democrats have really hurt Labour in this election.

Serious questions need to asked to why they carried on standing candidates

At the count in Kensington, the voters were horrified (pro-remain) that they have a die-hard leaver representing them because the liberal democrats refused to stand down.

In High Peak, the liberal democrat was sarcastically clapped for letting the Tory in. Even in Blyth Valley (first Tory gain) the Green party were put in the awkward position of trying to explain what the benefit is of splitting the left vote for the tory to win?  

Its totally pointless for the Green Party and Liberal democrats to say that the political system is rotten or broken. You know the rules before the election and if you have zero chance of running and its a swing district then questions need to be asked why are you running in the first place?

Labour candidates do not have a God given right to expect Lib Dem candidates to stand down in their favour and vice versa. The parties fought the election on different platforms and there is little evidence to suggest, especially in the case of Labour-Tory contests, that all of the votes from the third places party would have transferred directly to help the second placed party win. The admittedly unreliable constituency polling done before the election showed large numbers of Lib Dem voters preferred the Tories to Labour, and would have voted in sufficient numbers for the former in a straight fight that them to have won.

The idea that will inevitably be trotted out by sore Labour supporters that the election was really won by the ‘progressive alliance’ is, to be blunt, a load of old bollocks. Generally speaking there was little love lost between Labour and the Liberal Democrats (this is not 1997) who ran with very different policies on leaving the EU and on the budget, taxation and other economic issues. The same is true for Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP (see the SNP reaction to turfing out Swinson!), the latter of whom are on the opposite side to the former two of that central issue in Scottish politics, independence. There is little reason to believe that if every non-Labour and non-Tory candidate had stood down in the election that it would’ve resulted in a Labour victory. This is an excuse deployed by Labour partisans to distract from their party’s general unpopularity and their failure to build a durable, national coalition of support.

"Shame on Labour and Lib Dems not standing down in favour of the Tories. They split the unionist vote and let the SNP win!"

The progressive vote split narrative is only marginally less ridiculous than that.

[Intell]

Anyone have a narrative summary of the NI results? I see the changes, but don't really know the best way to interpret the vote totals nor what those changes mean

Huge blow to the DUP (a double blow as they lose their influence in Westminster as well, meaning there will more likely than not be a border in the Irish Sea), losing North and South Belfast as well as falling back in their strongholds like Antrim and failing to take Hermon's old seat of North Down. They just held on W Belfast, but that itself is pyrhic as it suggests that seat is vulnerable outside of the specific context that led to it falling in 2010 (i.e. Iris Robinson having an affair with a teenager).

Also very bad for Sinn Fein, who despite their pick-up in N Belfast had their majorities in South Down and West Belfast cut and lost Foyle (Derry) to the SDLP's Collum Eastwood.

Really it's great news all across the board in that province, assuming nobody here is in love with NI's squabbling pair of ultra-corrupt ex-paramilitaries. Some evidence of significant cross-community cooperation to oust the lazy bastards.

West Belfast...., lol jks

[Cassius]

The liberal democrats have really hurt Labour in this election.

Serious questions need to asked to why they carried on standing candidates

At the count in Kensington, the voters were horrified (pro-remain) that they have a die-hard leaver representing them because the liberal democrats refused to stand down.

In High Peak, the liberal democrat was sarcastically clapped for letting the Tory in. Even in Blyth Valley (first Tory gain) the Green party were put in the awkward position of trying to explain what the benefit is of splitting the left vote for the tory to win?  

Its totally pointless for the Green Party and Liberal democrats to say that the political system is rotten or broken. You know the rules before the election and if you have zero chance of running and its a swing district then questions need to be asked why are you running in the first place?

Labour candidates do not have a God given right to expect Lib Dem candidates to stand down in their favour and vice versa. The parties fought the election on different platforms and there is little evidence to suggest, especially in the case of Labour-Tory contests, that all of the votes from the third places party would have transferred directly to help the second placed party win. The admittedly unreliable constituency polling done before the election showed large numbers of Lib Dem voters preferred the Tories to Labour, and would have voted in sufficient numbers for the former in a straight fight that them to have won.

The idea that will inevitably be trotted out by sore Labour supporters that the election was really won by the ‘progressive alliance’ is, to be blunt, a load of old bollocks. Generally speaking there was little love lost between Labour and the Liberal Democrats (this is not 1997) who ran with very different policies on leaving the EU and on the budget, taxation and other economic issues. The same is true for Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP (see the SNP reaction to turfing out Swinson!), the latter of whom are on the opposite side to the former two of that central issue in Scottish politics, independence. There is little reason to believe that if every non-Labour and non-Tory candidate had stood down in the election that it would’ve resulted in a Labour victory. This is an excuse deployed by Labour partisans to distract from their party’s general unpopularity and their failure to build a durable, national coalition of support.

"Shame on Labour and Lib Dems not standing down in favour of the Tories. They split the unionist vote and let the SNP win!"

The progressive vote split narrative is only marginally less ridiculous than that.

I think in all honesty there’s possibly more evidence for the success of cross-party unionist cooperation (outside of Scotland’s central belt) than there is for the viability of a ‘progressive alliance’.

[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.

[jeron]

The liberal democrats have really hurt Labour in this election.

Serious questions need to asked to why they carried on standing candidates

At the count in Kensington, the voters were horrified (pro-remain) that they have a die-hard leaver representing them because the liberal democrats refused to stand down.

In High Peak, the liberal democrat was sarcastically clapped for letting the Tory in. Even in Blyth Valley (first Tory gain) the Green party were put in the awkward position of trying to explain what the benefit is of splitting the left vote for the tory to win?  

Its totally pointless for the Green Party and Liberal democrats to say that the political system is rotten or broken. You know the rules before the election and if you have zero chance of running and its a swing district then questions need to be asked why are you running in the first place?

The Lib Dems offered Labour some kind of arrangement earlier this year. Labour declined. So, there only was only a Lib Dem/Plaid/Greens pact.
What you say about Labour, can just as easily be said the other way around. SNP lost Moray by 1.2%, Labour’s share of the vote was 5%. The Lib Dems lost Wimbledon by 1.2%, Labour got 23.7% there!

[Mr. Illini]

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.

Are you suggesting that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania do not have strong socialist traditions?

Something they share with the north of England is that those socialist traditions were rooted in a strong labor movement, which has all but disappeared along with those jobs, leaving the people there susceptible to nationalist and racist sentiment.

[Blair]

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.

Are you suggesting that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania do not have strong socialist traditions?

Something they share with the north of England is that those socialist traditions were rooted in a strong labor movement, which has all but disappeared along with those jobs, leaving the people there susceptible to nationalist and racist sentiment.

But this doesn't make sense when you remember that the strong Labour movement & heavy industry  left in the 1980s- but these seats were still voting strongly for Labour until 2015.

These seats have never elected Tories. Those states have a long history of electing republicans at all levels.

[Mr. Illini]

#BritainFirst = #England(andWales)Alone?

[Beezer]

Honest question: Does anybody really think Corbyn's supposed antisemitism cost Labour a meaningful number of votes? Do working-class people in leave areas actually care about Corbyn's position on BDS or Israeli settlements? I personally doubt it but the media has been mentioning this issue non-stop as a factor.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Honest question: Does anybody really think Corbyn's supposed antisemitism cost Labour a meaningful number of votes? Do working-class people in leave areas actually care about Corbyn's position on BDS or Israeli settlements? I personally doubt it but the media has been mentioning this issue non-stop as a factor.

Jews make up about 1% of the population, and 94% voted against Corbyn (pre-election polling), so it probably cost one or two London marginals, like Finchley (which would have been a lot closer without the Jewish vote)

[Horus]

Honest question: Does anybody really think Corbyn's supposed antisemitism cost Labour a meaningful number of votes? Do working-class people in leave areas actually care about Corbyn's position on BDS or Israeli settlements? I personally doubt it but the media has been mentioning this issue non-stop as a factor.

The media was even more neurotic about his supposed antisemitism in 2017 and they gained seats. I think people were tired of Labour's confusing Brexit stance. Jeremy Corbyn is no antisemite, and that likely played virtually no role in any vote outside of NW London.

[bilaps]

Honest question: Does anybody really think Corbyn's supposed antisemitism cost Labour a meaningful number of votes? Do working-class people in leave areas actually care about Corbyn's position on BDS or Israeli settlements? I personally doubt it but the media has been mentioning this issue non-stop as a factor.

The media was even more neurotic about his supposed antisemitism in 2017 and they gained seats. I think people were tired of Labour's confusing Brexit stance. Jeremy Corbyn is no antisemite, and that likely played virtually no role in any vote outside of NW London.

Of course. People in leave areas turned to Conservatives and that trend isn't something new either. It's not rocket science. Sure, few people had reservations about Corbyn but he did ran against Boris for God's sake. People were sick and tired of delaying Brexit any further, they wanted out and they felt this isn't going to happen unless they vote blue. If remain people had so much reservations about Corbyn they would vote for Lib Dems.

[Blair]

Honest question: Does anybody really think Corbyn's supposed antisemitism cost Labour a meaningful number of votes? Do working-class people in leave areas actually care about Corbyn's position on BDS or Israeli settlements? I personally doubt it but the media has been mentioning this issue non-stop as a factor.

Yes. I know it cost Labour votes because it was mentioned on the doorstep from people who had voted Labour before.

It was never about his view on BDS or settlements; but rather about his comments (saying a mural of Jewish bankers playing monopoly over corpses was fine) his associations with Hamas (who he called his friends) and the unwillingness of the party to suspend individuals who made grossly antisemitic comments.