UK General Election 2019 - Election Day and Results Thread

[CumbrianLefty]

It is maybe understandable that some Tory voters were a bit "shy" in 1997......

It really hasn't been a thing in more recent GEs though (2015 was for other reasons)

[DistingFlyer]

It is maybe understandable that some Tory voters were a bit "shy" in 1997......

It really hasn't been a thing in more recent GEs though (2015 was for other reasons)

Given that the exit poll supposedly focuses on marginals, it's not too surprising that the popular vote figures were off - the Labour swing was stronger in their target seats than in the country as a whole, and the effectiveness & efficiency of anti-Tory tactical voting made them make even more gains.

A lead of 47% to 29% would mean a 13% swing to Labour; the swing in Tory-held marginals was 12%, and the 'effective' swing (that is, one nominally necessary to make 146 gains) was 12.4%. Given that the rough number at which Peter Snow's arrow initially pointed when he was explaining the exit poll figures was a Labour majority of around 170-180 (he didn't actually specify a number until some results had actually come in, and then forecast a majority of 171), which was pretty consistent with the final result, I think that this may be why the popular vote numbers exaggerated the Labour lead.

[AMOLAK MANN]

It is maybe understandable that some Tory voters were a bit "shy" in 1997......

It really hasn't been a thing in more recent GEs though (2015 was for other reasons)

Given that the exit poll supposedly focuses on marginals, it's not too surprising that the popular vote figures were off - the Labour swing was stronger in their target seats than in the country as a whole, and the effectiveness & efficiency of anti-Tory tactical voting made them make even more gains.

A lead of 47% to 29% would mean a 13% swing to Labour; the swing in Tory-held marginals was 12%, and the 'effective' swing (that is, one nominally necessary to make 146 gains) was 12.4%. Given that the rough number at which Peter Snow's arrow initially pointed when he was explaining the exit poll figures was a Labour majority of around 170-180 (he didn't actually specify a number until some results had actually come in, and then forecast a majority of 171), which was pretty consistent with the final result, I think that this may be why the popular vote numbers exaggerated the Labour lead.

This was true of the ITN poll which accurately forecast the marginal would swing more and so it's national vote share projection from the changes in the marginal exaggerated the LAbour lead-46 to 30% but the BBC poll was national so the reason for the exaggeration may still be a shy Tory effect as in 1992

[CumbrianLefty]

That and not forecasting the drop in turnout (with safe Labour seats especially)

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

Did any pollsters ask how people voted (or planned to vote) listed by their votes in May’s EU election?

[Silent Hunter]

Don't think so - people tend to vote very differently in non-General Elections.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

Don't think so - people tend to vote very differently in non-General Elections.

That’s why I was interested in it. I wanted to see how many supporters the Lib Dems kept and who they gained.

[DistingFlyer]

Here's a link to my (finally completed!) spreadsheet of UK elections from 1885 to two weeks ago; obviously when the full Electoral Commission report comes out the latest figures may change a bit, but this should do for now. Have also thrown in the 2014 & 2016 referenda for good measure. Data come from F. W. S. Craig's books (1885 to 1992), Electoral Commission reports (2001 to the present) and Walker's Ireland books (1885 to 1918).

A couple of items:

Firstly, the italicized constituencies (1885 to 1970) indicate constituencies that roughly fall within modern-day Greater London;

Secondly, the Irish figures from 1885 to 1918 are taken from Walker's Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland, 1801-1922, which lack tables totalling the vote by party at each election; therefore, there may be some errors in my figures as I wasn't able to cross-check my totals with anything definite (though I've gone over them several times, I can't promise there are no mistakes!).

Thirdly, there are some hidden columns indicating swing figures for elections from 1959 to the present (doing it pre-1945 didn't make as much sense due to parties not always contesting a seat two elections in a row - Labour, then Liberal, then both, then just one again, and so forth, for instance).

Fourthly, the vote percentages from 1885 to 1945 have been adjusted for dual-member constituencies rather than simply being taken from the raw totals (this is why the 1945 percentages, for instance, are 48.0%-39.6% as opposed to 47.7%-39.7%).


https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dYxOhd1afsae8DNN-tSN77Uuk6ZUKi0O

[Annatar]

The shift by income was interesting, of course there are the exit polls that tell you how people voted by income but looking at seats by median income is pretty interesting as well. In the top third of seats by income, the top 220, the Tory vote share was 46% in 2017 and 45% in 2019 whereas the combined Labour + Lib Dem + Green vote share was 50% in 2017 and 51% in 2019. The Tories gained no seats in this group, they won 138/220 in 2017 and won 138/220 in 2019. There was no swing whatsoever towards the Tories in the top third of seats by income.

[vileplume]

Guildford
Conservative Bloc 2015: 65.9
Conservative Bloc 2019: 44.9
Swing: 21.0

Esher and Walton
Conservative Bloc 2015: 72.6
Conservative Bloc 2019: 49.4
Swing: 23.2

Wokingham
Conservative Bloc 2015: 67.6
Conservative Bloc 2019: 49.6
Swing: 18.0

Sevenoaks
Conservative Bloc 2015: 74.8
Conservative Bloc 2019: 60.7
Swing: 14.1

Tunbridge Wells
Conservative Bloc 2015: 71.3
Conservative Bloc 2019: 55.1
Swing: 16.2

Runnymede and Weybridge
Conservative Bloc 2015: 73.6
Conservative Bloc 2019: 55.8
Swing: 17.8

South West Hertfordshire
Conservative Bloc 2015: 68.4
Conservative Bloc 2019: 49.6
Swing: 18.8

Surrey Heath
Conservative Bloc 2015: 74.2
Conservative Bloc 2019: 59.7
Swing: 14.5

Reigate
Conservative Bloc 2015: 70.1
Conservative Bloc 2019: 55.1
Swing: 15.0

Chesham and Amersham
Conservative Bloc 2015: 72.8
Conservative Bloc 2019: 55.4
Swing: 17.4

St Albans
Conservative Bloc 2015: 54.4
Conservative Bloc 2019: 39.2
Swing: 15.2

You really think there's nothing here?

With all due respect you really don't understand British politics at all do you?

A large chunk of the Lib Dem vote especially in posh suburban places like these would prefer the Tories to Labour given the choice (indeed many were Tory voters until the Brexit saga) especially as it seems unlikely that Labour will return to the centre with the next leader likely being Rebecca Long-Bailey. It was Tory fear-mongering about the Lib Dems putting Labour in that stopped many Tory Remainers in places like Esher from voting Lib Dem which cost them a large number of seats. If the Lib Dems were stupid enough to openly associate themselves with Labour the Tory Remainers that they did manage to win over would go scurrying back to their former party leaving the Lib Dems with nothing except a decent second or two in Streatham or Hornsey.  

Similarly a large chunk of Labour's base regard the Lib Dems as little better than the Tories (indeed many Labour activists actually regard them as worse as at least the Tories 'fight fair' apparently) hence the whole '#YellowTories' thing on Twitter. Labour is also very tribal and I believe that it's written into the party's constitution that they're obligated to contest every seat (except those in Northern Ireland which its sister party the SDLP contests as well as the Speaker's seat).

As for the comparison with Canada that I see @DistingFlyer made with the North being Tory and the Home Counties all Labour/Lib Dem: this scenario would only work if the Lib Dems displaced Labour as the main opposition to the Tories which is not going to happen as Labour has a far too loyal base and hence a decent floor. If Canada was like the UK and if instead of rebounding under Trudeau the Liberals had gone into to terminal decline dropping to ~10 seats in 2015 the Tories would dominate the 905 whilst the NDP would hold sway in Northern Ontario.

Labour's path back to government lies through getting back at least the greater part of the seats they just lost, especially the more urban ones like the West Bromwich seats, though some of the more rural ones e.g. Bishop Auckland may indeed be gone. Couple this with expanding into poorer areas in the South such as Cornwall as well as diversifying middle-of-the-road commuter towns like Milton Keynes or High Wycombe and Labour could build a sustainaable coalition with Brexit sorted.

As for the Lib Dems, where I do agree with you is that there is a huge opportunity for the Lib Dems in posh commuterville (where I live) but it is not by allying themselves to Labour, if anything they should be distancing themselves further. If this is the route they want to go down they should re-brand as the 'sensible, pragmatic' party with a solemn duty for putting the breaks on the 'extremism' of the Conservatives and Labour; whilst at the same time pushing the 'party of business' narrative (especially responsible business) and tie this into an internationalist world view. They should be very pro-environment/sustainability though leaving the more extreme sounding anti-growth stuff to the Greens. On social issues be liberal and pro-freedom (obviously) though they should avoid getting dragged into the latest 'woke' obsession e.g. announcing pronouns or self I.D which raises more than a few eyebrows round these parts. This is basically how they'd take the Home Counties from the Tories and establish a very solid base here, though I somewhat doubt they'll go down this route.

Also please don't add Labour and the Lib Dems vote shares together and draw conclusions from it (similarly for the Tory and Brexit Party votes) as the two are not interchangeable. It's as silly as adding the Tory vote to the Labour vote and inferring that huge number means that the vast majority of Britain is illiberal.

[adma]

As for the Lib Dems, where I do agree with you is that there is a huge opportunity for the Lib Dems in posh commuterville (where I live) but it is not by allying themselves to Labour, if anything they should be distancing themselves further. If this is the route they want to go down they should re-brand as the 'sensible, pragmatic' party with a solemn duty for putting the breaks on the 'extremism' of the Conservatives and Labour; whilst at the same time pushing the 'party of business' narrative (especially responsible business) and tie this into an internationalist world view. They should be very pro-environment/sustainability though leaving the more extreme sounding anti-growth stuff to the Greens. On social issues be liberal and pro-freedom (obviously) though they should avoid getting dragged into the latest 'woke' obsession e.g. announcing pronouns or self I.D which raises more than a few eyebrows round these parts. This is basically how they'd take the Home Counties from the Tories and establish a very solid base here, though I somewhat doubt they'll go down this route.

Sort of a UK version of the "Macron coalition" in France.

[urutzizu]

Have been delving a bit deeper into the election results and there almost strikes me to be a certain pattern, where a quite disproportionate number of northern/midlands "heartlands" constituencies where the Tories didn't win, despite winning neighbouring ones, was where their candidate was Asian.

Examples:

Alyn and Deeside (Sanjoy Sen); 58% Leave: Swing Con-->Lab 5.6%, Labour Hold.
Compared to Delyn; 54% Leave: Swing Con-->Lab 6.5%, Con. Gain

Stalybridge and Hyde* (Tayub Amjad); 59% Leave: Swing Con-->Lab 6.4%, Labour Hold.
Compared to Denton and Reddish; 61% Leave: Swing Con-->Lab 9.8% (Labour held this one)

Halifax* (Kashif Ali); 59% Leave: Swing Con-->Lab 2.8%, Labour Hold.
Compared to Dewsbury; 57% Leave: Swing Con-->Lab 4.3%, Con. Gain

Wolverhampton S. East (Ahmed Ejaz); 68% Leave: Swing Con-->Lab 9.9%, Labour Hold.
Compared to Wolverhampton N. East; 68% Leave: Swing Con-->Lab 12.2%, Con. Gain

Walsall South (Gurjit Bains); 62% Leave: Swing Con-->Lab 6.1%, Labour Hold.
Compared to West Bromwich East; 68% Leave: Swing Con-->Lab 12.1%, Con. Gain

* Decline in the Con. Vote share - quite rare occurrences in Northern/Midlands strongly Leave seats.  

The Latter two were sore red thumbs in what was a otherwise a complete blue sweep of the black country. The Walsall South one is perhaps a bit more questionable, due to the fact that Valerie Vaz is Asian too - though her name on the ballot paper might not let on to that fact.  

Rochdale, Sunderland Central, Bradford South, Barnsley Central*, Salford & Eccles*, South Shields* may be further examples. Are there demographic factors that explain these results? Or might there be racial bias involved?

[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:

[CumbrianLefty]

Walsall South also has a significant non-white population.

(and I think most voters locally will be aware that their MP is not a WASP)

[DC Al Fine]

Guildford
Conservative Bloc 2015: 65.9
Conservative Bloc 2019: 44.9
Swing: 21.0

Esher and Walton
Conservative Bloc 2015: 72.6
Conservative Bloc 2019: 49.4
Swing: 23.2

Wokingham
Conservative Bloc 2015: 67.6
Conservative Bloc 2019: 49.6
Swing: 18.0

Sevenoaks
Conservative Bloc 2015: 74.8
Conservative Bloc 2019: 60.7
Swing: 14.1

Tunbridge Wells
Conservative Bloc 2015: 71.3
Conservative Bloc 2019: 55.1
Swing: 16.2

Runnymede and Weybridge
Conservative Bloc 2015: 73.6
Conservative Bloc 2019: 55.8
Swing: 17.8

South West Hertfordshire
Conservative Bloc 2015: 68.4
Conservative Bloc 2019: 49.6
Swing: 18.8

Surrey Heath
Conservative Bloc 2015: 74.2
Conservative Bloc 2019: 59.7
Swing: 14.5

Reigate
Conservative Bloc 2015: 70.1
Conservative Bloc 2019: 55.1
Swing: 15.0

Chesham and Amersham
Conservative Bloc 2015: 72.8
Conservative Bloc 2019: 55.4
Swing: 17.4

St Albans
Conservative Bloc 2015: 54.4
Conservative Bloc 2019: 39.2
Swing: 15.2

You really think there's nothing here?

With all due respect you really don't understand British politics at all do you?

A large chunk of the Lib Dem vote especially in posh suburban places like these would prefer the Tories to Labour given the choice (indeed many were Tory voters until the Brexit saga) especially as it seems unlikely that Labour will return to the centre with the next leader likely being Rebecca Long-Bailey. It was Tory fear-mongering about the Lib Dems putting Labour in that stopped many Tory Remainers in places like Esher from voting Lib Dem which cost them a large number of seats. If the Lib Dems were stupid enough to openly associate themselves with Labour the Tory Remainers that they did manage to win over would go scurrying back to their former party leaving the Lib Dems with nothing except a decent second or two in Streatham or Hornsey.  

Similarly a large chunk of Labour's base regard the Lib Dems as little better than the Tories (indeed many Labour activists actually regard them as worse as at least the Tories 'fight fair' apparently) hence the whole '#YellowTories' thing on Twitter. Labour is also very tribal and I believe that it's written into the party's constitution that they're obligated to contest every seat (except those in Northern Ireland which its sister party the SDLP contests as well as the Speaker's seat).

As for the comparison with Canada that I see @DistingFlyer made with the North being Tory and the Home Counties all Labour/Lib Dem: this scenario would only work if the Lib Dems displaced Labour as the main opposition to the Tories which is not going to happen as Labour has a far too loyal base and hence a decent floor. If Canada was like the UK and if instead of rebounding under Trudeau the Liberals had gone into to terminal decline dropping to ~10 seats in 2015 the Tories would dominate the 905 whilst the NDP would hold sway in Northern Ontario.

Labour's path back to government lies through getting back at least the greater part of the seats they just lost, especially the more urban ones like the West Bromwich seats, though some of the more rural ones e.g. Bishop Auckland may indeed be gone. Couple this with expanding into poorer areas in the South such as Cornwall as well as diversifying middle-of-the-road commuter towns like Milton Keynes or High Wycombe and Labour could build a sustainaable coalition with Brexit sorted.

As for the Lib Dems, where I do agree with you is that there is a huge opportunity for the Lib Dems in posh commuterville (where I live) but it is not by allying themselves to Labour, if anything they should be distancing themselves further. If this is the route they want to go down they should re-brand as the 'sensible, pragmatic' party with a solemn duty for putting the breaks on the 'extremism' of the Conservatives and Labour; whilst at the same time pushing the 'party of business' narrative (especially responsible business) and tie this into an internationalist world view. They should be very pro-environment/sustainability though leaving the more extreme sounding anti-growth stuff to the Greens. On social issues be liberal and pro-freedom (obviously) though they should avoid getting dragged into the latest 'woke' obsession e.g. announcing pronouns or self I.D which raises more than a few eyebrows round these parts. This is basically how they'd take the Home Counties from the Tories and establish a very solid base here, though I somewhat doubt they'll go down this route.

Also please don't add Labour and the Lib Dems vote shares together and draw conclusions from it (similarly for the Tory and Brexit Party votes) as the two are not interchangeable. It's as silly as adding the Tory vote to the Labour vote and inferring that huge number means that the vast majority of Britain is illiberal.

Just be glad we didn't get some of the analysis we got in the Canadian thread, where someone assumed 100% perfect transfers between the Trudeau-Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois if "progressives were unified"

[DistingFlyer]

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.

[CumbrianLefty]

So parties that come to power usually have above average swings in marginals - 1979 a notable exception.

[DistingFlyer]

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%):