UK General Election, 2017 - Election Day and Results Thread

[Former President tack50]

Why was Tim Farron's constituency so close? He only won by like 777 votes. I thought he was the safest Lib Dem?

Even though they won seats it seems that most of their seats are in precarious situations.

[Former President tack50]

Donald Tusk‏ - @eucopresident
We don't know when Brexit talks start. We know when they must end. Do your best to avoid a "no deal" as result of "no negotiations".

-------

All results declared except Kensington

Tory 318
Labour 261
LD 12
SNP 35
Democratic Ulster Unionits 10
Sein Fein 7
Plaid 4

So, Con+DUP would have a majority of 6 (more in practice because Sinn Fein don't take their seats). However, they would also have all other parties against them (no way the Lib Dems do a deal with the Conservatives again).

Also I thought the Brexit deadline could be delayed if all countries agreed? (I don't think that would be an issue, I don't think it's a controversial thing to do and the EU will probably want a deal as well)

[Former President tack50]

¿Could there be a everyone vs the conservatives if the DUP is not able to deal with the Tories because of disagreements on Brexit?

I guess such a coalition would be a disaster from day 1 though.

[Former President tack50]

In 2010, Tories had a 7-point lead over Labour and won 48 more seats. Now with a 2.5 point lead they'll have 56 or 58 more. So it looks like the structural advantage due to FPP has shifted hard to the Tories.

To make it more clear you should take out the Scotland effects. Look at just the English constituency results: in 2010 Tories were up by 11 to Labour and they had a majority of 106. This time Tories are only up by 3.7 in England (!) and likely have a majority of 70.

How much of this is just inefficient realignment of the vote from Lib Dem to Labour however (given the Lib Dems have lost 35 seats?)

I hate to say "global trends" but to a major degree if reflects the fact that Labour, like many a left wing party, is increasingly piling up votes in big cities and struggling in smaller and mid-sized towns. In particular in the Midlands, where many of the old marginals used to be.

Yeah, I looked at the map and it reminded me of the US election map slightly, with small dots of red (or somethimes orange) surrounded by a sea of blue. At least in the southern half of the country. The rural north seems better for Labour (although I think Tories might be winning there as well)

[Former President tack50]

The fact that Scotland is part of the problem doesn't make it less of a problem.

But yeah, the results out of England are somewhat promising. Does anyone have the vote totals by regions?

The BBC website allows you to see partial results from England, Scotland, Wales and NI

http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2017/results

[Former President tack50]

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)

[Former President tack50]

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).

To be fair, this election wasn't really globalists/nationalists. Neither May nor Corbyn was really all that globalist, leaving only the 3rd parties, which send a mixed message. In fact, if anything Corbyn was the populist, not May, and both had nationalist elements in their campaigns.

Nationalist UKIP was indeed obliterated, but most of their vote went to the Tories and Labour (they were previous voters of those parties).

Globalist parties didn't to much better either. The Lib Dems did win 4 seats, but they actually lost 0.5 points in the popular vote! The greens were also obliterated in the popular vote, losing more than half their votes compared to 2015 (although they did keep their only seat with an increased majority)

And that's without getting into the SNP and Plaid. They are clearly nationalists, but their nationalism has nothing to to with Trump and the like (there's no US equivalent actually, other than maybe Puerto Rico).

[Former President tack50]

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.

[Former President tack50]

The difference between allying oneself with the DUP as opposed to the SNP is, of course, that the DUP wants to retain the integrity of the United Kingdom whereas the SNP wants Scotland to leave the UK.

To be fair, is the "vote Tory or Labour will break up the UK" rhethoric as prevalent in the UK as here in Spain? (where "breaking up Spain" is one of the main arguments of the right)

[Former President tack50]

---

Minor inconsistencies wrt rounding etc quite likely, but who care. In all cases you see a bigger map with the Power of right click.

So apparently the Lib Dems only really do well in rural central Wales, northern Scotland and southern England?