United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019

[Tintrlvr]

There will be a few amendments that are in the works to lower the voting age, give voting rights to Uk residents who are eu citizens and to cap election spending. I think the former would have the most chance of passing, but it would be opposed by the government.

Sam Gyimah to stand in Kensington.

Will this help Labour or Tories?

To the extent it helps either, presumably the Tories, because the ultra-Remainer typically Tory voters who voted Labour as a backlash against Victoria Borwick in 2017 will mostly vote for him, and Labour can't win Kensington without them. In extremis, maybe he could win the seat through the middle. I don't know enough about the Tory candidate to say; if she's a strong Leaver, Gyimah has a chance. She has apparently stumbled around totally unwinnable seats for the last couple of elections (South Down in 2015 and South Shields in 2017), so she may just be loyal footsoldier type.

[Tintrlvr]

There will be a few amendments that are in the works to lower the voting age, give voting rights to Uk residents who are eu citizens and to cap election spending. I think the former would have the most chance of passing, but it would be opposed by the government.

Sam Gyimah to stand in Kensington.

Will this help Labour or Tories?

To the extent it helps either, presumably the Tories, because the ultra-Remainer typically Tory voters who voted Labour as a backlash against Victoria Borwick in 2017 will mostly vote for him, and Labour can't win Kensington without them. In extremis, maybe he could win the seat through the middle. I don't know enough about the Tory candidate to say; if she's a strong Leaver, Gyimah has a chance. She has apparently stumbled around totally unwinnable seats for the last couple of elections (South Down in 2015 and South Shields in 2017), so she may just be loyal footsoldier type.

This isn't really true. Remainer Tories in Kensington were never going to vote Labour, because nobody in their family has done that since 1832. We are talking about a very posh, very wealthy and implacably anti-Labour demographic.

The reason they lost in 2017 was that a) some of those Remainer Tories voted Lib Dem (as was the case in a fair swathe of well-off west London); b) more of those Remainer Tories didn't vote; c) there are fewer of those Remainer Tories than there used to be, because they're being outcompeted in the property market by oligarchs and have to move to Chiswick instead and d) turnout in the Labour-voting estates went up, as has been the pattern for a little while now.

The following article takes a pretty solid go at putting forward the case for Gyimah, but it's notable that it only really addresses the posher half of the seat. Unless we start seeing active evidence that he's making inroads in the more down-at-heel bits of North Kensington, I struggle to see his path to victory.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/10/sam-gyimah-standing-kensington-can-he-win

It's kind of crazy to deny that a bunch of (obviously not all) Remainer Tories voted Labour in Kensington in 2017. The factors you cite happened, too, but turnout was up overall, and swings like that against the national grain don't just happen because of organization. Tory Remainers voting Labour was the only reason it was competitive in the first place: Borwick, as an ardent Leave campaigner, was a dreadful fit for the constituency, and many Tory Remainers who had only ever voted Tory before abandoned her - some, yes, for the Lib Dems, but a larger share for Labour. Obviously many Tory Remainers stuck with the Tories anyway in 2017 (if they hadn't, Borwick would have gotten around 20% of the vote instead of over 40% of the vote), but Tory Remainers who voted for Borwick are probably mostly going to vote for another Tory this time around, too, especially one who is less strongly associated with the Leave campaign than Borwick was (although apparently the new candidate writes for "BrexitCentral.com", so maybe she's not much of a shift from Borwick ideologically).

[Tintrlvr]

What would happen if the Tories fell around 10 seats short of a majority as they are now? So an effective majority is probably around 320 seats, and the Tories need at least 310 seats to be able to have the confidence of the House even if the DUP supports them. How would the UK move forward with Brexit if it's a bit of a status quo result, so like 315 Conservative MPs. In such a scenario Labour probably loses around 30 seats if not more.

They would have largely purged the Remainer rebels, so a similar result to 2017 is still probably a success for Johnson.

[Tintrlvr]

Nicky Morgan is retiring and will not stand in December. First off, her seat should still keep to it's history even in a Brexit focused election, voting near 50-50 between remain and leave. It's a rather unique seat in that regard since it's located in the Brexit-loving East/Northeast. However, fear of loss probably wasn't the motivator - she's a remainer, backed Gove for leadership, and was opposed to Boris's brexit maneuvers. People like her are no longer a natural fit for the Conservative party.

Worth remembering that Labour held that seat from 1955-1979 and 1997-2010. It's not a safe Tory seat.

Loughborough has voted for the winning party nationally at every election since February 1974. We'll see if it keeps that streak.

[Tintrlvr]

How likely is it for the Greens to have 2 seats or more following this election?

Highly unlikely.

If the greens get a deal with Libs, Lab, or  both to stand aside  in some of the areas their strong in, or be the de facto remain choice on the ballot then they could easily get as many seats where the above holds true. But barring that, it's an unlikely prospect.

There are I believe zero seats that are Conservative-held where the Greens are in second place, though, so there's nowhere really where the Greens could really get a free run. Maybe the LDs will stand aside for them on the Isle of Wight, probably the Greens' best chance at a gain from the Conservatives, but they're still fighting from third place, and in a Leave seat.

[Tintrlvr]

How likely is it for the Greens to have 2 seats or more following this election?

Highly unlikely.

If the greens get a deal with Libs, Lab, or  both to stand aside  in some of the areas their strong in, or be the de facto remain choice on the ballot then they could easily get as many seats where the above holds true. But barring that, it's an unlikely prospect.

There are I believe zero seats that are Conservative-held where the Greens are in second place, though, so there's nowhere really where the Greens could really get a free run. Maybe the LDs will stand aside for them on the Isle of Wight, probably the Greens' best chance at a gain from the Conservatives, but they're still fighting from third place, and in a Leave seat.

Wouldn't Bristol West be a better target for the Greens?

Bristol West is held by Labour; Isle of Wight is their top target held by the Conservatives. Labour-held seats are very unlikely to be relevant to a ”Remain Alliance”, and in any event I have a tough time seeing the Greens peeling off a lot of votes from Corbyn Labour other than strategic votes.

[Tintrlvr]

Lib Dems

aside from the likes of Ummuna and Gyimah, who don't count, the only vulnerable Lib Dem MP is probably their own leader, given Scotland's unpredictability.

Brake and Lloyd (if he counts) are definitely more likely to lose than Swinson. Probably Farron as well. I think people are overestimating how vulnerable she is.

Way overestimating. East Dumbartonshire one of the most strongly anti-independence areas in Scotland outside of the borders and the islands, and the SNP is not going to sop up Remain votes in the LD-held seats. Swinson is very safe.

[Tintrlvr]

Brake? Long-time Lib Dem MP who survived both 2015 and 2017 in an seat that only narrowly voted for Brexit who seems relatively untouched by scandal to my knowledge?

Fair enough about Farron though.

Dunno about Farron either - he has been working his constituency *hard* since the 2017 scare.

The LDs also gained seats in the local council in 2019 and really have  stranglehold on local politics. I know that's not definitive, but South Lakeland is an odd one where the local council strength is strongly tied to Farron personally.

[Tintrlvr]

More developments in NI: UUP reverse their "stand everywhere" policy, standing down in Belfast North in aid of the DUP's Nigel Dodds, in exchange for the UUP given free reign in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

SDLP will not stand in three seats - Belfast East (where they will back Naomi Long of Alliance), Belfast North (where they will back Sinn Fein against Nigel Dodds) and North Down (where they back Lady Hermon.

In exchange Sinn Fein will not stand in three Northern Irish seats: in Belfast South (where they will back the SDLP's Claire Hanna), in Belfast East (where they will also back Long) and North Down (also for Hermon).

Is the SDLP favored anywhere?

Belfast South (especially if the UUP stand separate from the DUP) and perhaps Foyle, where their leader is standing (Foyle is an extremely marginal SF/SDLP which is basically Derry - for obvious reasons it is not named after the city it covers).

What do you think Long's chances are in Belfast East?  

I don't know tbh. First off, the abstention by SF and sdlp won't matter - I don't think the nationalist vote combined has ever even come close to breaking the 5% desosit threshold. The issue is that the current MP has a pretty thumping lead and is not surrounded by scandal (which was the reason Long won back in 2010) - in a place as inflexible as NI it could be insurmountable, and if he is defeated it would indicate a serious issue with rhe DUP as a brand. I honestly think, even with alliance doing well, he is the safest DUP MP in Belfast.

I do agree with this; I think the Alliance has a better shot in Belfast South, where they could win on a close split between the Unionist and Nationalist parties, than in Belfast East.

[Tintrlvr]

Bad news: Lady Sylvia Hermon is retiring.

Perhaps she thinks she won't win after the DUP gave her a close scare last time around. Any chance for someone other than the DUP (maybe the Alliance if they can get the Greens to stand down, or vice versa?) to win the seat?

[Tintrlvr]

Full map of the Remain Alliance. I suspect it contains a lot of the LDs main defense and top targets, Notable missing seats:

-St Albans
-Cities of London and Westminster
-Putney
-Kingston and Surbiton
-Cambridge
-Carshalton and Wallington
-Ceredigion still remains a LD/PC grudge match

-Eastbourne remains a peculiar seat for both the LDs and 'their' incumbent.

Other than Cambridge (and Ceredigion), I find it strange that the Greens weren't willing to stand aside in any of these. I understand Cambridge because it should be a relatively strong seat for them.

[Tintrlvr]

Lib Dems and Plaid stepping down in the Vale of Glamorgen will probably be a lot more beneficial to Lavour than the Greens. Scrap what I said about Stroud, that truly is the weirdest part of this alliance - the Greens got less than 1% of the vote last election! I guess the Welsh Greens wanted a token run, and it's not like there are many great targets for them, but still very funny.

I imagine some of the obvious omissions are due to Eurosceptic candidates e.g. St Ives, Eastbourne or friendly incumbents (Norwich South? Sheffield Central?). Or for that matter obstinate local parties, but you'd have to be on the ground to find out what's going on there.

That's the problem when the Greens are only relevant in maybe 5 seats nationwide but want to be seen as an equal partner in the alliance.

[Tintrlvr]

https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1192452762958729221

y i k e s

Speaking of which, what's Salma Yaqoob up to these days? Is she going to run somewhere?

[Tintrlvr]

2017 wasn't a win, but it wasn't a bad election for Labour (as far as not winning it goes): they gained seats and votes, they severely hampered their principal opponents, defied expectations all around.

A 2019 loss would be something much more unambiguous. Corbyn would likely not be able to last until the subsequent election. The flip side of this, of course, is that anything but a total loss (i.e. Tory majority) likely makes him PM.

Tough call on the bold. If the Tories are larger than Labour+SNP, and even if they're smaller than Labour+SNP but Labour+SNP are far short of a majority, I think another election in early 2020 is at least as likely as, or maybe more likely than, PM Corbyn.

[Tintrlvr]

tonight's debate may have some bearing on that (I'm not one of those who thinks they can never change anything - and tbh am surprised at those who do, given Cleggmania wasn't *that* long ago)

Cleggmania didn't change anything though. It gave Clegg a momentary blip but the overall effect on the election was actually fairly minimal

There can certainly be a pretty good argument that it stopped the Tories getting a majority in that election, with the consequences that we are all familiar with.

Also the LDs were meandering in the mid-teens before Cleggmania. They didn't get 30+% of the vote as looked possible at the peak of Cleggmania, but they did get mid-20s, which was a big difference. Maybe less so in seats.

[Tintrlvr]

Apparently some Jewish People were offended by how Corbyn pronounced "EpSHtein" in the Debate, allegedly in an attempt to make him sound more Jewish?

I have been following the story in question, and was genuinely not aware there was a "correct" and "incorrect" way to pronounce said name before last night - never mind that any particular one betrays AS tendencies

If you go out of your way to pronounce Epstein with an "Sch" sound for the S, you're clearly going for a very Jewish pronunciation...but that's not necessarily anti-Semitic. It depends on context and what Epstein's preference was in life.

Indeed, such "careful" pronunciation is often an attempt to be "respectful" to the minority concerned rather than the opposite - its only because it is Corbyn that certain people are losing their s*** over it.

“Respectful” but wrong, as Epstein’s name is NOT pronounced that way, which makes it look more like stupid-person failed fake PC pandering. I agree that it’s unlikely it was intended to be anti-Semitic, but Corbyn has justifiably lost the benefit of the doubt on anti-Semitism at this point, so one can hardly blame people for having their hackles up.

[Tintrlvr]

This came through the door earlier. Now that's what I call a misleading bar chart.

Looks like the Greens are really gunning to turn this into a long-term target. I think a major reason for the Remain Alliance coming into place was so the Greens could get a few more of those. Anything other than third this time around would shock me of course, but who knows what'll happen in the future.(Although I suspect the boundary changes that need to happen eventually will screw them over in that endeavour)

How do they justify just blatant lies like that Remain graphic?

To be fair, it isn't a lie - that's the European election figures for Green+LD+any other Remain parties like CHUK (lol), or at least a close estimation of the numbers. What it is is exceptionally misleading but we've been seeing that a lot lately...

LD+Green etc. really got 64% of the vote there? That's honestly surprising, I knew the LDs won most of the rockribbed Labour seats in core London at the EU elections, but didn't know they won any by those margins.

[Tintrlvr]

I genuinely cannot tell what is supposed to be funny about that.

Loans to rent? That is absolutely the worst idea ever. And it's so LibDem. Let's help people by further burying them under our Thatcherite delusion. Have any LibDems, like, ever met a poor person before?

Having difficulty coming up with a security deposit and various other upfront costs to renting because it's a large chunk of money to pay at once for people who have little or no savings is a regular poor-person problem, at least here in (an expensive city in) the U.S. Maybe it's different in the U.K., but the idea doesn't seem crazy or humorous. Certainly you *could* have a bad program with high interest rates and whatnot, but it doesn't seem presumptively bad.

[Tintrlvr]

Obviously there is some disagreement about the historical voting tendencies of the Jewish population, but it is very interesting to see the recent poll with a large majority going to the Tories.

Obviously here in the United States, the Jewish population is overwhelmingly Democratic regardless of income level.

My thought is that it would be that the Jewish population is solidly center-left and resistant to nationalism and social conservatism yet solidly pro-Israel. The Dems fit that bill pretty well, whereas Labour has been less pro-Israel on foreign policy.

Yet, I would think that that would cause Jewish voters to defect to LibDems rather than the Tories - especially today's loony Eurosceptic Tory party.

British Jews do not have the same political outlook as American Jews. British Jews are  mostly centre-right and generally supportive of Cameron-Osbourne-esque economic policies. Unsurprisingly they've been generally a Tory demographic since Thatcher. Yes they are suspicious of overt nationalism but they don't tend to see the Tories as such, instead viewing them as the 'pro-Jewish' party.

The important element here is that radical Christianity is very weak even within the British right but is a major factor in U.S. politics.

[Tintrlvr]

Obviously there is some disagreement about the historical voting tendencies of the Jewish population, but it is very interesting to see the recent poll with a large majority going to the Tories.

Obviously here in the United States, the Jewish population is overwhelmingly Democratic regardless of income level.

My thought is that it would be that the Jewish population is solidly center-left and resistant to nationalism and social conservatism yet solidly pro-Israel. The Dems fit that bill pretty well, whereas Labour has been less pro-Israel on foreign policy.

Yet, I would think that that would cause Jewish voters to defect to LibDems rather than the Tories - especially today's loony Eurosceptic Tory party.

British Jews do not have the same political outlook as American Jews. British Jews are  mostly centre-right and generally supportive of Cameron-Osbourne-esque economic policies. Unsurprisingly they've been generally a Tory demographic since Thatcher. Yes they are suspicious of overt nationalism but they don't tend to see the Tories as such, instead viewing them as the 'pro-Jewish' party.

The important element here is that radical Christianity is very weak even within the British right but is a major factor in U.S. politics.

Orthodox Jews in the US are much more politically radical than religious Jews in Britain, but are a comparably smaller fraction of the larger Jewish community. America's characteristically toxic ideologization of religion is the smoking gun here, not Christianity (or even Judaism).

In any case, if British Jews are dumb enough to pat their backs with the false comfort of British conservatism's relative irreligiosity, that's a weird choice. British right wingers (and left wingers) are incomparably more anti-Semitic than any group in the US, regardless of the radically religious influence on American politics. That's a British problem not unique to any one political faction.

*Shrug* It's hard not to be alienated by evangelical Christianity in the U.S. Republican Party if you're not a Christian. There are few non-Christian Republicans in the U.S. for this reason. It's certainly true that some Orthodox Jews have made peace with evangelical Christianity (though they generally live in areas with no significant evangelical presence so don't have to interact regularly anyway), but they're also ideologically strongly aligned with evangelical Christianity on pretty much everything but the messiah status of Jesus. I don't think American Jews at least vote as if they are constantly in existential crisis much (any?) more than other voters do on this point. It's just as alienating to atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc.

But outside the U.S., Jews mostly vote on economic interests, which sometimes (Canada, Britain) means being right-wing, but in some places is more ambiguous (France).

And you may be underestimating anti-Semitism in both the U.S. right and left, it's just less acceptable to say out loud.

[Tintrlvr]

But outside the U.S., Jews mostly vote on economic interests, which sometimes (Canada, Britain) means being right-wing, but in some places is more ambiguous (France).

The Jewish community in Canada votes mostly Liberal, though Orthodox Jews are more Conservative (i.e. Thornhill).

Liberal sometimes, but right-wing Liberal no doubt. Being a Lib-Con swing demographic in Canada means being on the center-right, after all (outside of certain odd community-based voting patterns, which of course do happen among Jews in Canada as well...)

[Tintrlvr]

As I said earlier iirc 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2017 has seen a lot of people who claim to hate the current leader turn out for Labour in the end- there's a whole range of reasons why, but there is always a chunk of the Labour vote that is both tribal but also hostile to the party.

It appears that 2005 really was about vote efficiency more than anything else. Labour only narrowly won the popular vote but swept most of the swing seats. Did disgruntled labour voters feel more free to vote for another party in safe seats than those who were in marginals?

In 2005 (especially) and also to a significant degree in 2010, the Lib Dems had a huge number of votes locked away in safe Labour seats, primarily due to people who are otherwise down-the-line left-wingers voting against Labour over Iraq (and in 2010 in part due to various Lib Dems promises that were perceived as favorable to those on the left), keeping Labour's popular vote totals down while not affecting their seat counts much at all.

[Tintrlvr]

Courtesy of a Northern Irish poster here:

Okay, so nearly a week after they said it ought to be out and four days of trickling it out by various media outlets LucidTalk's full poll is out in a form I don't need to buy the Sunday Times or mine deep into twiter for. Excluding Don't Knows they have (with changes compared to GE17):

DUP 30% (-6%)
SF 25% (-4.4%)
APNI 16% (+8.1%)
SDLP 13% (+1.3%)
UUP 11% (+0.7%)
GPNI 0.1% (-0.7%)
Others* 4.9% (+1.2%)

Aontu, PBP, UKIP, Conservatives, a couple of Indos

There is also constituency information, which ought to be taken with an even bigger grain of salt than usual with LucidTalk:

Antrim East
DUP 49% (-8.3%)
APNI 19.9% (+4.3%)
UUP 12.9% (+1%)
SF 6.3% (-3%)
SDLP 5% (+1.6%)
Others: 6.9% (+4.4%)

Antrim North
DUP 51.6% (-7.2%)
APNI 14.2% (+8.6%)
UUP 10.3% (+3.1%)
SF 11.5% (-4.8%)
SDLP 9.2% (+3.9%)
Others 3.2% (N/A)

Antrim South
DUP 31.7% (-6.5%)
APNI 25.9% (+18.5%)
UUP 21.6% (-9.2%)
SF 12.9% (-5.3%)
SDLP 8% (-2.5%)

Belfast East
DUP 48.3% (-7.5%)
APNI: 46.6% (+10.6%)
UUP 5.2% (+1.9%)

Belfast North
DUP 43.1% (-3.1%)
SF 39.8% (-1.9%)
APNI 17.1% (+11.7%)

Belfast South
SDLP 34.4% (+8.5%)
APNI 26.5% (+8.3%)
DUP 26.1% (-4.3%)
UUP 5.7% (+2.2%)
Others: 7.3% (+6.7%)

Belfast West
SF 60.7% (-6%)
SDLP 9.5% (+2.5%)
DUP 8.3% (-5.2%)
PBP 8.2% (-2%)
APNI 6.7% (+4.9%)
Others 6.6% (+5.7%)

Down North
DUP 40.2% (+2.1%)
APNI 40% (+30.7%)
UUP 15.8%* (N/A)
Others 4% (+1.5%)

*They actually mark Others and UUP the other way around, but I'm making the bold assumption that the Tories aren't going to go all mid-90s on us and Chambers isn't going to lose his deposit.

Down South
SF 41.6% (+1.7%)
SDLP 29.8% (-5.3%)
DUP 10.8% (-6.6%)
APNI 9.2% (+5.6%)
UUP 5.3% (+1.4%)
Others 3.2% (N/A)

Fermanagh and South Tyrone
SF 46.3% (-0.9%)
UUP 40.4% (-5.1%)
SDLP 6.2% (+1.3%)
APNI 4.5% (+3.8%)
Others 2.6% (N/A)

Foyle
SDLP 38.4% (-0.9%)
SF 34.7% (-5%)
DUP 9.7% (-6.4%)
APNI 7% (+5.2%)
UUP 4.4% (N/A)
PBP 2.3% (-0.7%)
Others 3.4% (N/A)

Lagan Valley
DUP 51.2% (-8.4%)
UUP 17.6% (+0.8%)
APNI 14.8% (+3.7%)
SDLP 8.9% (+1.4%)
SF 2.4% (-1.1%)
Others 5.1% (+3.6%)

Londonderry East
DUP 39.7% (-8.4%)
SF 19.5% (-7%)
SDLP 13% (+2.2%)
APNI 12% (+5.8%)
UUP 9.1% (+1.5%)
Others 6.6% (+5.8%)

Newry and Armagh
SF 41.8% (-6.1%)
SDLP 19.5% (+2.6%)
DUP 16.8% (-7.8%)
UUP 9.9% (+1.6%)
APNI 8.5% (+6.2%)
Others 3.5% (N/A)

Strangford
DUP 53.7% (-8.3%)
APNI 18.2% (+3.5%)
UUP 12.3% (+0.9%)
SDLP 7.6% (+1.4%)
SF 1.9% (-0.9%)
GPNI 1.2% (-0.4%)
Others 5.2% (+3.9%)

Tyrone West
SF 43.7% (-7%)
DUP 18.6% (-8.3%)
SDLP 15.2% (+2.2%)
APNI 8.2% (+5.9%)
UUP 6.7% (+1.5%)
GPNI 0.8% (-0.2%)
Others 6.8% (+5.9%)

Ulster Mid
SF 48.6% (-5.9%)
DUP 19% (-7.9%)
SDLP 12.2% (+2.4%)
APNI 8.5% (+6.2%)
UUP 8.1% (+1.6%)
Others 3.6% (N/A)

Upper Bann
DUP 38.4% (-5.1%)
SF 21.2% (-6.7%)
UUP 17.9% (+2.5%)
SDLP 11.5% (+2.9%)
APNI 11.1% (+6.6%)

Some interesting possibilities raised there, though not sure how much I believe others. Pengelly in third in Belfast South would be delicious, and those are some incredibly tight margins in Belfast East and North Down. Alliance keeping deposits in seventeen seats out of sixteen would be very nice, though some of the other bits that pop up are dubious (for one I'll be very surprised if the SDLP beat either of the DUP and PBP in Belfast West, let alone both, and Aontu beating the UUP in South Belfast...well it sure is something).

Considering how the APNI functions like a mini-Lib-Dem with their vote usually concentrated in Greater East Belfast (Belfast East/South and the Near suburbs in North down), this poll is promising. It's more likely the Alliance does worse than expected outside their home base than the poll projects, and better inside. So there are e potentially two APNI gains here. Other than that, looks like what we normally expect: 2 SDLP gains, and potentially close races in F & S Tyrone and Belfast North.

A result like this would honestly be so heartbreaking. The Alliance so close to breaking through in not just one but four seats, yet falling short in all of them.

[Tintrlvr]

The real important question is what is the British-African-American vote doing?

Even more importantly: will it rain in British NoVa tomorrow?

It always rains in British NoVA.

[Tintrlvr]

SDLP and Sinn Fein both stood down, leaving only the Alliance for non-unionists and Remainers to vote for.

The total SF+SDLP vote in North Down was 2.4% in 2017, so that didn't make a difference in the Alliance victory even if every single SF and SDLP voter swallowed their pride and voted for Stephen Farry (but it's doubtful that more than about half actually transferred, with the rest not voting).

The Greens standing aside was a lot more meaningful; they got 6.5% in 2017 and would have transferred much better to the Alliance as the two parties basically fish in the same pool of voters.

But mainly, the Alliance clearly sopped up the vast majority of voters who had supported Sylvia Hermon over the DUP in the past. Hermon's history in the seat, her past anti-DUP positioning as well as implicit endorsement of the Alliance definitely made it easier for the Alliance to claim a position as her spiritual successor. They may not have won it if the same had occurred in 2017 (before the DUP made themselves look even more like fools than usual over Brexit and the continued suspension of Stormont), but by 2019 the DUP was clearly suffering across Northern Ireland, so the Alliance had an opening. And North Down is a relatively wealthy, liberal place, to the extent such things exist in Northern Ireland--it's possibly the most pro-same-sex marriage constituency in NI, for example (though Belfast South might be more so)--so a natural place for strength for the Alliance that had merely been suppressed by the presence of Sylvia Hermon.