UK General Election 2019 - Election Day and Results Thread

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

States are larger than constituencies and thus are more diverse, and have both the suburbs and racial polarization at work. Religious divides also play a bigger role in US elections, which would make some manufacturing/mining areas more Republican in a way that isn't practical for a similar place in the UK, so until we reached this point in terms of nationalism there was little to provoke this result in the UK.

That said, we have seen several old mining/industrial districts flip in the 2010s for the first time in decades or at least vote for Donald Trump.

[bilaps]

Also center left Ed Miliband hang on to his seat by a slimmest of margins, going down 22% since last election and he only kept his seat because of CON/BREXIT PARTY non-tactical voting

[Blair]

Also center left Ed Miliband hang on to his seat by a slimmest of margins, going down 22% since last election and he only kept his seat because of CON/BREXIT PARTY non-tactical voting

Because people don't vote for their local MPs they vote based on the national party

[jimrtex]

I happened to notice that Labour lost their deposit in Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine.

I know that Labour kept their deposit in all constituencies in 2017, and the Conservatives only lost theirs in Northern Ireland seats.

When was the last previous loss of the deposit by Labour (or the Conservatives in Great Britain)?

How is the return handled? I would hope there would be an official with a roll of banknotes, and handing them out to the candidates as they left the podium.

[bilaps]

Also center left Ed Miliband hang on to his seat by a slimmest of margins, going down 22% since last election and he only kept his seat because of CON/BREXIT PARTY non-tactical voting

Because people don't vote for their local MPs they vote based on the national party

Mostly true, but still candidates matter

[Intell]

Also center left Ed Miliband hang on to his seat by a slimmest of margins, going down 22% since last election and he only kept his seat because of CON/BREXIT PARTY non-tactical voting

Because people don't vote for their local MPs they vote based on the national party

Mostly true, but still candidates matter

They don't unless you're a minor party candidate.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Also center left Ed Miliband hang on to his seat by a slimmest of margins, going down 22% since last election and he only kept his seat because of CON/BREXIT PARTY non-tactical voting

Because people don't vote for their local MPs they vote based on the national party

Ah yes, so much for the favorite "argument" of pro-FPTP crowd: "you're voting for a person, not a party".

[Blair]

and if people do vote for a local person it is not because they're 'centre left' (a term most voters don't know) but because they're local, good at replying to emails and good at sorting out local problems.

[DistingFlyer]

Also center left Ed Miliband hang on to his seat by a slimmest of margins, going down 22% since last election and he only kept his seat because of CON/BREXIT PARTY non-tactical voting

Because people don't vote for their local MPs they vote based on the national party

Ah yes, so much for the favorite "argument" of pro-FPTP crowd: "you're voting for a person, not a party".

It is rather rare for a candidate in Britain to buck the overall trends, but it does happen. I'm glad to say that here in NS, the candidates still count for a great deal (which is how I always vote).

[Shilly]

[CumbrianLefty]

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

[Tender Branson]

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“ ...

[Middle-aged Europe]

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.

[Tender Branson]

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, the Conservatives could have also won by an even bigger margin.

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

[Tender Branson]

BTW:

What’s the Oklahoma north of London on the coast ?

[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.......

[Middle-aged Europe]

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 ...

Oh, but it does.

Many elections are decided by one side staying home in greater numbers than the other on election day. Many political campaign strategies are even specifically designed to discourage the opponent's potential voters from voting.

[Oryxslayer]

BTW:

What’s the Oklahoma north of London on the coast ?

Do you mean Essex in general or Clacton, once the seat of the only UKIP MP.

[parochial boy]

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.......

Adding to that, where turnout actually rose Labour did well, Putney being the emblematic example. Whereas the real story in the North etc was less that loads of people suddenly decided to vote Conservative, but the Labour vote fell of a cliff - mostly because their voters stayed home.

[Tender Branson]

BTW:

What’s the Oklahoma north of London on the coast ?

Do you mean Essex in general or Clacton, once the seat of the only UKIP MP.

No, much further north on the coast where that 2nd butt comes out below that river ...

[Tender Branson]

BTW:

What’s the Oklahoma north of London on the coast ?

Do you mean Essex in general or Clacton, once the seat of the only UKIP MP.

No, much further north on the coast where that 2nd butt comes out below that river ...

The area around Boston and Norwitch.

[DistingFlyer]

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.......

Adding to that, where turnout actually rose Labour did well, Putney being the emblematic example. Whereas the real story in the North etc was less that loads of people suddenly decided to vote Conservative, but the Labour vote fell of a cliff - mostly because their voters stayed home.

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.

[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)

[parochial boy]

And who said anything about surpressed? A pretty major part of the story here is what was suggested would happen actually did, Labour failed to convince their supporters to vote for them, hence lower turnout. It just doesn't necessarily mean that the pool of Conservative voters in those constituencies has grown as much as people seem to be suggesting.

[Middle-aged Europe]

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.

Personally I wasn't really advocating in favour of "only Labour benefits from high turnout all the time". I was just saying that it would have been the case here.

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.

My hypothesis is based on the phenomenon that at least (most) core voters of a specific party tend be more likely to stay at home and not vote at all rather than to suddenly switch to the opposing party they never cared to vote for. Because the latter represents a much higher psychological threshold the core voter needs to overcome (which in turn forms the very basis of actual voter suppression tactics and explains why they work). But maybe "suppressed" was the wrong choice of words here. If anything, Corbyn and Labour managed to suppress themselves of course.