What a sensational day. The day, perhaps, when FPTP died as a credible electoral system in this country. If that is the case, for me it will be the most significant and joyous event of my little political life. God bless UKIP. I agree with little of what they say, but should they have helped to bring about the end of our awful voting system if they achieve nothing else they will have made this country a better place.
I would like to read a coherent piece from a Tory why FPTP is either good for them or for the country ?
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 2m Looks like Tories may lose less seats than Labour did in 2009 (291), and Labour may only gain 250-ish. That's terrible for Ed.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn Looks like Tories may lose less seats than Labour did in 2009 (291), and Labour may only gain 250-ish. That's terrible for Ed.
Many thanks for your work on this - it seems to be the only coherent place where you can actually get the results promptly.
Running my eye down the counties still to declare fully, it looks to me as though the total Con losses will be something like 320. If I'm right, that's not too bad considering the starting point and the Ukipalypse.
I am very far from sure I trust the BBC figures but according to them with only 4 councils left to fully declare the tory losses are 229. 320 seems seriously high to me unless there are some major collapses to come.
What a sensational day. The day, perhaps, when FPTP died as a credible electoral system in this country. If that is the case, for me it will be the most significant and joyous event of my little political life. God bless UKIP. I agree with little of what they say, but should they have helped to bring about the end of our awful voting system if they achieve nothing else they will have made this country a better place.
Agree.
FPTP is surely untenable now. With only the Tories and a few Labour dinosaurs to fight its corner, versus 3 of the 4 main parties, something's got to give.
AV was not the answer though. Anyway PR now. I assume the Lib Dems will still want PR. They will won't they ?!? !!
Many thanks for your work on this - it seems to be the only coherent place where you can actually get the results promptly.
Running my eye down the counties still to declare fully, it looks to me as though the total Con losses will be something like 320. If I'm right, that's not too bad considering the starting point and the Ukipalypse.
I'm also not clear what you your point is around "terms of trade"? Do you mean balance of payments, the standard definition of terms of trade, or something else I'm missing?
I mean that I do not believe the rules with which we trade with the rest of the world would be adversely impacted by us leaving the EU. (There a few exceptions to this, such as the auto industry where we are very integrated into pan-Euro supply chains, but I suspect we'd negotiate a position with the EU where we remained effectively part of the SEA for this sector.)
Don't you think we'd benefit from trade deals with people like the US, Canada, India, Japan, Australia etc? Not to mention cheap food from Africa...
My point is simply that I don't think we would be in a worse position.
It's a difficult question. I think there are some clear wins, such as food from Africa. With the US, we'll get the standard Most Favoured Nation status. I think India will be a tough nut to crack, because the protectionist instincts run strongly there. If they are able to exploit the giant Bay of Bengal gas fields then that will narrow their trade deficit, and they will be more open to opening their borders to us (and others). For China, we'd almost certainly get a pretty good deal - quite possibly better than with the EU. However, the benefits there would be quite modest as China is surprisingly open to the EU right now.
So - better terms of trade with non-EU nations. If we were outside the EEA, I think we'd still get a pretty good deal with the EU (free trade or thereabouts). The issue would be more one of documentation and bureaucracy. In other words, they would be keen to ensure that goods imported from China could not be just rebadged and then re-exported into the SEA. This would undoubtedly have a modestly negative impact on those businesses tightly integrated into European supply chains (such as autos), but I suspect we would negotiate things in this area too.
All-in-all, I don't think we have anything to be *too* worried about. There would be near-term disruption, of course, but that would be sorted in time. I think the bigger impact would be on areas like The City. Which you can take as a positive or a negative :-)
Interesting comment on UKPR by someone called Richard (hope he doesn't mind me quoting him):
"I think we’re seeing three rough voting blocks forming: Labour – public sector + non-white Conservative – middle class private sector UKIP – working class private sector The LibDems don’t have a voting block only personal votes, tactical votes and heritage votes. The UKIP block is the one suffering from globalised capitalism and metropolitan bigotry. While these continue – and they will for the rest of the decade at least – UKIP will continue to grow stronger. The Labour and Conservative voting blocks are shielded from the effects of globalisation and sometimes benefit from it or support it. Which is why the Labour and Conservative leaderships underestimated the UKIP threat and now struggle to deal with it."
What Lord Reid isn't explaining is why Labour are only four points ahead in mid-term, despite this 'historic opportunity' of the centre-right being split down the middle.
Can I take the UKIP East/West divide as making up for my catastrophic Romney error?
Your obsession with a Romney win was a bit whimsical. Particularly, when it was reinforced by your visit to the States.
All is forgiven. I don't remember anyone else actually mentioning the East/West divide. What's behind it ? East Europeans settling numbers ?
It's not just Slovaks picking sprouts: UKIP have done well in eastern areas less impacted by immigration. It is perhaps an archaic cultural thing, as I speculate on a Telegraph blog, where I shamelessly nicked Morris Dancer's "ukipalypse".
There was a good US article last year, that suggested that the culture of the original settlers to the various US states are responsible for their political culture today.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn Looks like Tories may lose less seats than Labour did in 2009 (291), and Labour may only gain 250-ish. That's terrible for Ed.
Heroic spin! Bless his little cotton socks.
More to the point its the Sun 'vote for who you like' that's spinning it......
I'd say
Cons - bad night - but priced in/could have been worse LibDem - gruesome Lab - good, but 'could do better' UKIP - great - but still fans of FPTP?
So let's imagine there's a little bit of swingback by 2015 and we end up with a Lib-Lab coalition. The Lib Dems would almost certainly demand STV as part of the deal. That means a very, very interesting 2020 election.
Or not. I doubt Labour could get a move to STV through parliament without a referendum, which they'd lose. If they tried to force it, I could easily see a big enough backbench rebellion to cause the bill to fail.
If the Lib Dems had any sense they'd demand STV for a reformed Lords, which should be far more easily accomplished. But then if they'd had any sense they'd have demanded that in 2010 too.
I really don't think they would lose a referendum. Among a lot of people I know who voted against AV, one of the leading reasons was that it wasn't proportional and thus didn't seem like a worthwhile change. The benefits of AV were hard to make clearly. A system that can be classed as PR, which STV definitely will be, has a very clear argument that makes sense to most non-political people.
You think that after the experience of this parliament, people will vote for perpetual coalitions and horse-trading, cutting the electorate out even more than happened beforehand? OK, two elections in a row resulting in hung parliaments would undermine the ability of FPTP to deliver that too but FPTP does have a historic record of delivering workable majorities most of the time.
The message of these elections is that an increasingly large number of voters are fed up with being ignored by politicians. Why would they then vote for a system that would - for a while at least - enshrine the established parties and require consensus in the liberal metropolitan centre?
You think that after the experience of this parliament, people will vote for perpetual coalitions and horse-trading, cutting the electorate out even more than happened beforehand?
How does coalition government cut out the electorate any more than single party government?
"Introduce an element of proportional representation in national and local elections. UKIP favours an electoral system based on Alternative Vote Plus so that constituency MPs have to earn at least 50% of the vote (as in Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections). For illustration, 450 MPs might be elected on a single member constituency basis (with each constituency increased to 100,000 voters) and 200 MPs on a party list basis. A second ballot approach may be preferable."
Huzzah! The Beeb has just confirmed that UKIP have exactly 117 seats. The very number I predicted, though I admit that I said 117 gains and not just seats. Close, so close.
Huzzah! The Beeb has just confirmed that UKIP have exactly 117 seat. The very number I predicted, though I admit that I said 117 gains and not just seats. Close, so close.
Currently UKIP have 133 seats, according to my workings. And there are only Durham (64) Kent (11) Northamptonshire (34) Nottinghamshire (2) Worcestershire (6) and Ynys Mon (9) left to declare.
Can I take the UKIP East/West divide as making up for my catastrophic Romney error?
Your obsession with a Romney win was a bit whimsical. Particularly, when it was reinforced by your visit to the States.
All is forgiven. I don't remember anyone else actually mentioning the East/West divide. What's behind it ? East Europeans settling numbers ?
It's not just Slovaks picking sprouts: UKIP have done well in eastern areas less impacted by immigration. It is perhaps an archaic cultural thing, as I speculate on a Telegraph blog, where I shamelessly nicked Morris Dancer's "ukipalypse".
"Why is eastern England the cradle of English rebellion? That is more difficult to say"
It's fairly easy to say really, namely you're picking selectively to create a pattern (If you were really trying hard you could include Kett's rebellion etc). There are certain factors involved to do with the type of land (agricultural vs pastoral) but you could construct a similar pattern in the north (The Rising of the North being one of the most famous).
You think that after the experience of this parliament, people will vote for perpetual coalitions and horse-trading, cutting the electorate out even more than happened beforehand?
How does coalition government cut out the electorate any more than single party government?
Single party governments are elected on their manifesto and can be held accountable to it. Coalitions are not elected on any manifesto and the promises made before the election are not therefore enforceable as they depend on whether the party concerned can win the support of others to realise them.
Can I take the UKIP East/West divide as making up for my catastrophic Romney error?
Your obsession with a Romney win was a bit whimsical. Particularly, when it was reinforced by your visit to the States.
All is forgiven. I don't remember anyone else actually mentioning the East/West divide. What's behind it ? East Europeans settling numbers ?
It's not just Slovaks picking sprouts: UKIP have done well in eastern areas less impacted by immigration. It is perhaps an archaic cultural thing, as I speculate on a Telegraph blog, where I shamelessly nicked Morris Dancer's "ukipalypse".
You miss possibly the most cricial event of all - the division of England into Wessex and Danelaw in the 9th century. The place names of eastern England are very different to those of the west, as are the accents (of course). Inheritance, land holding, all kinds of things were affected by the split, long after it ended - including, no doubt, how peope view the world. Alfred and Guthrum created a monster that Nigel Farage, with some help from Dave and George, has begun to reawaken. And there is nothing that EdM can do about it. We are going back to the future.
Can you give me the full figures? I seem to have misplaced the good Kent website with up to date figures!
Kent CC Number of seats declared - 82 (2 remaining)
Party Seats Gained Lost Held Conservative 44 0 25 44 UK Independence Party 15 14 0 1 Labour 13 11 1 2 Liberal Democrat 7 1 1 6 Green Party 1 1 0 0 Residents Association 1 0 0 1 British National Party 0 0 0 0 English Democrats 0 0 0 0 Independent 0 0 0 0 TU & S Against Cuts 0 0 0 0
Can you give me the full figures? I seem to have misplaced the good Kent website with up to date figures!
Kent CC Number of seats declared - 82 (2 remaining)
Party Seats Gained Lost Held Conservative 44 0 25 44 UK Independence Party 15 14 0 1 Labour 13 11 1 2 Liberal Democrat 7 1 1 6 Green Party 1 1 0 0 Residents Association 1 0 0 1 British National Party 0 0 0 0 English Democrats 0 0 0 0 Independent 0 0 0 0 TU & S Against Cuts 0 0 0 0
Rob
Do you want the individual wards?
Not sure how easy it will be to lift the data.
Thats good enough, ta! Just wanted to update the table.
The BBC's projection is a bit odd because if UKIP are averaging 25% in contested seats you'd expect them to go a lot lower than the projected share of 23% once you include places like London, Scotland, Wales, Birmingham, etc.
I can't see UKIP only dropping 2 percentage points once you include those areas.
The BBC's projection is a bit odd because if UKIP are averaging 25% in contested seats you'd expect them to go a lôt lower than the projected share of 23% once you include places like London, Scotland, Wales, Birmingham, etc.
I can't see UKIP only dropping 2 percentage points once you include those areas.
I've been thinking exactly the same.
Any idea how they calculate it?
Interesting to see what the figures are when the dust settles and the boffins have got stuck into it.
Michael Heaver @Michael_Heaver Green Leader @natalieben said they'd win more seats than UKIP. Greens on 16. UKIP on 108. Fringe vs. mainstream.
Aah! Revenge is sweet.
I'm not her biggest fan but I really doubt she said the Greens would win more seats in yesterday's elections (they're the weakest part of the electoral cycle for us). Surely she said we'd have more Cllrs in total than UKIP after yesterday's elections. Something that looks like a close run thing but will probably come to pass (though I'm missing a few councils so could be wrong).
You miss possibly the most cricial event of all - the division of England into Wessex and Danelaw in the 9th century. The place names of eastern England are very different to those of the west, as are the accents (of course). Inheritance, land holding, all kinds of things were affected by the split, long after it ended - including, no doubt, how peope view the world. Alfred and Guthrum created a monster that Nigel Farage, with some help from Dave and George, has begun to reawaken. And there is nothing that EdM can do about it. We are going back to the future.
The Conservatives are lucky to have just outpolled UKIP in so many divisions across the country.
I agree, it could have been far far worse. Interesting if the LDs actually lose a greater % of cllrs than the Conservatives, will the main broadcast media notice? Currently BBC showing C lost -20.7% and LD lost 25.9% of their starting cllr numbers.
Robert Jackson @Robert58585858 Several Redditch/Worcs seats are double headers with Ukip picking up 1 of the 2 - Lab & Con voters splitting tickets or maybe ex-LD voters?
My ward returned a Kipper and a Tory - @RobD is it possible to tell from your data how many wards returned a split UKIP ticket?
Election 2015 midland marginals - Leicestershire; Labour would gain Leicestershire NW + Loughborough - Nottinghamshire; Labour would gain Broxtowe, Sherwood, - Derbyshire; Labour would gain Amber Valley, High Peak, Erewash, - Staffordshire; Labour would gain Cannock Chase and Stafford. - Lincolnshire; Labour would gain Lincoln - Warwickshire; Labour would gain Nuneaton, Warwickshire North, Leamington.
BBC Propaganda @BBCPropaganda Harriet Harman "people might have voted UKIP, but they don't want it running the country" << They don't want her running the country either
The BBC's projection is a bit odd because if UKIP are averaging 25% in contested seats you'd expect them to go a lot lower than the projected share of 23% once you include places like London, Scotland, Wales, Birmingham, etc.
I can't see UKIP only dropping 2 percentage points once you include those areas.
They'll be on about 2/3rds of that once Scotland,London, Wales and the Northern conurbations are accounted for
Yes but this BBC projection is supposed to have already taken into account how the whole country would have voted. They're saying that even with London, Scotland, Wales, etc, UKIP would be on 23%. That doesn't sound right to me.
Michael Heaver @Michael_Heaver Green Leader @natalieben said they'd win more seats than UKIP. Greens on 16. UKIP on 108. Fringe vs. mainstream.
Aah! Revenge is sweet.
I'm not her biggest fan but I really doubt she said the Greens would win more seats in yesterday's elections (they're the weakest part of the electoral cycle for us). Surely she said we'd have more Cllrs in total than UKIP after yesterday's elections. Something that looks like a close run thing but will probably come to pass (though I'm missing a few councils so could be wrong).
I'm afraid she did and it was on no less a platform than the BBC.
Election 2015 midland marginals - Leicestershire; Labour would gain Leicestershire NW + Loughborough - Nottinghamshire; Labour would gain Broxtowe, Sherwood, - Derbyshire; Labour would gain Amber Valley, High Peak, Erewash, - Staffordshire; Labour would gain Cannock Chase and Stafford. - Lincolnshire; Labour would gain Lincoln - Warwickshire; Labour would gain Nuneaton, Warwickshire North, Leamington.
I thought Leamington was looking like a decent performance for Labour.
The Conservatives are lucky to have just outpolled UKIP in so many divisions across the country.
I agree, it could have been far far worse. Interesting if the LDs actually lose a greater % of cllrs than the Conservatives, will the main broadcast media notice? Currently BBC showing C lost -20.7% and LD lost 25.9% of their starting cllr numbers.
It has been getting worse and worse for the Lib Dems all afternoon. Given that they basically stood still in the Labour meltdown of 2009 with all the gains going to the tories these are really poor results. Have we seen the pinnacle of Lib Dems in local government?
Election 2015 midland marginals - Leicestershire; Labour would gain Leicestershire NW + Loughborough - Nottinghamshire; Labour would gain Broxtowe, Sherwood, - Derbyshire; Labour would gain Amber Valley, High Peak, Erewash, - Staffordshire; Labour would gain Cannock Chase and Stafford. - Lincolnshire; Labour would gain Lincoln - Warwickshire; Labour would gain Nuneaton, Warwickshire North, Leamington.
Comments
Take your time, Huw, please...
Some animals are more equal than others
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2013/05/03/20002-20130503ARTFIG00351-deficit-public-bruxelles-accorde-un-sursis-deux-ans-a-la-france.php
Re gains / losses: note that boundary changes mean 52 less seats in total this time - so Rob's gains / losses will end up totalling to -52.
BBC have allowed for boundary changes so their gains / losses will sum to zero.
Thus Rob will overstate Con losses.
Looks like Tories may lose less seats than Labour did in 2009 (291), and Labour may only gain 250-ish. That's terrible for Ed.
It's an article of faith, they've forgotten the reason why.
Apparently, the Head of BBC News has publicly said that he was pro-Israel. Not a surprise really. Surprisingly, he didn't say he was pro Tory !
It's a difficult question. I think there are some clear wins, such as food from Africa. With the US, we'll get the standard Most Favoured Nation status. I think India will be a tough nut to crack, because the protectionist instincts run strongly there. If they are able to exploit the giant Bay of Bengal gas fields then that will narrow their trade deficit, and they will be more open to opening their borders to us (and others). For China, we'd almost certainly get a pretty good deal - quite possibly better than with the EU. However, the benefits there would be quite modest as China is surprisingly open to the EU right now.
So - better terms of trade with non-EU nations. If we were outside the EEA, I think we'd still get a pretty good deal with the EU (free trade or thereabouts). The issue would be more one of documentation and bureaucracy. In other words, they would be keen to ensure that goods imported from China could not be just rebadged and then re-exported into the SEA. This would undoubtedly have a modestly negative impact on those businesses tightly integrated into European supply chains (such as autos), but I suspect we would negotiate things in this area too.
All-in-all, I don't think we have anything to be *too* worried about. There would be near-term disruption, of course, but that would be sorted in time. I think the bigger impact would be on areas like The City. Which you can take as a positive or a negative :-)
Con 44 seats with two still to declare.
BBC put in council result (ie control) before they enter seats!
It just means overall council control is known in 30.
Clearly not the most resonant of platforms
Reid on BBC talking completew drivel about the vote shares......
How do you edit posts?
"I think we’re seeing three rough voting blocks forming:
Labour – public sector + non-white
Conservative – middle class private sector
UKIP – working class private sector
The LibDems don’t have a voting block only personal votes, tactical votes and heritage votes.
The UKIP block is the one suffering from globalised capitalism and metropolitan bigotry. While these continue – and they will for the rest of the decade at least – UKIP will continue to grow stronger.
The Labour and Conservative voting blocks are shielded from the effects of globalisation and sometimes benefit from it or support it.
Which is why the Labour and Conservative leaderships underestimated the UKIP threat and now struggle to deal with it."
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/bostonandskegness/
EDIT
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2011/features/a_geography_lesson_for_the_tea032846.php?page=1
I'd say
Cons - bad night - but priced in/could have been worse
LibDem - gruesome
Lab - good, but 'could do better'
UKIP - great - but still fans of FPTP?
700 seats o/s per BBC.
They will seek a coalition deal with another party, probably Labour, who Plaid predict will have 'about four seats'.
They insist that they will not be prepared to include any independents in a new administration, saying a fresh start is needed.
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/story/2013-04-15/anglesey-council-election-campaign/#plaid-cymru-well-lead-new-council_198499
https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/Election2013/division/bramcote-and-stapleford
"UKIP - great - but still fans of FPTP?"
I can't claim to be an expert on UKIP's evolving policy platform, but the last time I checked they were in favour of PR.
With all due respect, I've given up trying to work out what the hell goes on in your head, Carlotta, so I really can't assist you there.
A friend of mine who switched from Conservative to UKIP was beaten 1300 to 1100 by the Council leader.
The Conservatives are lucky to have just outpolled UKIP in so many divisions across the country.
The message of these elections is that an increasingly large number of voters are fed up with being ignored by politicians. Why would they then vote for a system that would - for a while at least - enshrine the established parties and require consensus in the liberal metropolitan centre?
"Introduce an element of proportional representation
in national and local elections. UKIP
favours an electoral system based on Alternative
Vote Plus so that constituency MPs have
to earn at least 50% of the vote (as in Scottish
Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections). For
illustration, 450 MPs might be elected on a
single member constituency basis (with each
constituency increased to 100,000 voters) and
200 MPs on a party list basis. A second ballot
approach may be preferable."
http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPmanifesto1304a.pdf
Congratulations Nick.
It's fairly easy to say really, namely you're picking selectively to create a pattern (If you were really trying hard you could include Kett's rebellion etc). There are certain factors involved to do with the type of land (agricultural vs pastoral) but you could construct a similar pattern in the north (The Rising of the North being one of the most famous).
Green Leader @natalieben said they'd win more seats than UKIP. Greens on 16. UKIP on 108. Fringe vs. mainstream.
Aah! Revenge is sweet.
Con 25
Lab 29
LD 14
UKIP 24
Under PR^2
Con 176
Lab 237
LD 55
UKIP 163
Oths 18
Con-UKIP coalition majority?
Do you want the individual wards?
Not sure how easy it will be to lift the data.
Where UKIP and Lib Dems are both standing, we are 175,000 votes ahead of them.
If not, it may seem I like reprimanding Nick and Notts Labour! :-)
https://twitter.com/GawainTowler/status/330333469945253889
I can't see UKIP only dropping 2 percentage points once you include those areas.
If Ed Miliband continues with his 35% strategy, Labour will be sidelined. Next 2 years will become debate between 2 wings of Tory party.
Any idea how they calculate it?
Interesting to see what the figures are when the dust settles and the boffins have got stuck into it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10035780/Local-elections-2013-Ukips-leader-Nigel-Farage-drinks-to-his-success.html
What do you make of Tory mp for Erewash Jessica Lee who felt it was unnecessary for her to help her councillors campaign or attend the count?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:England_878.svg
Interesting if the LDs actually lose a greater % of cllrs than the Conservatives, will the main broadcast media notice? Currently BBC showing C lost -20.7% and LD lost 25.9% of their starting cllr numbers.
Is that correct.
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/video-new-south-shields-mp-emma-lewell-buck-visits-king-street-1-5643049
Several Redditch/Worcs seats are double headers with Ukip picking up 1 of the 2 - Lab & Con voters splitting tickets or maybe ex-LD voters?
My ward returned a Kipper and a Tory - @RobD is it possible to tell from your data how many wards returned a split UKIP ticket?
Well, the Lincolnshire jury have voted.
As expected, it's a triumph for the anecdote, despite tim's protestations.
- Leicestershire; Labour would gain Leicestershire NW + Loughborough
- Nottinghamshire; Labour would gain Broxtowe, Sherwood,
- Derbyshire; Labour would gain Amber Valley, High Peak, Erewash,
- Staffordshire; Labour would gain Cannock Chase and Stafford.
- Lincolnshire; Labour would gain Lincoln
- Warwickshire; Labour would gain Nuneaton, Warwickshire North, Leamington.
Ten more seats and I get a kiss from MikeK.
Better go and put some lippy on....
BBC Propaganda @BBCPropaganda
Harriet Harman "people might have voted UKIP, but they don't want it running the country" << They don't want her running the country either
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22367125
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21240025
Tim C @forwardnotback
Nice as it is to take Notts remember we held it from 81 - 2009 - should be a far more comfortable gain
I suspect a lot of 2010 'stay at home' Labour voters voted yesterday - and not for Labour.
I can confirm that I did not vote for her in the leadership election.
That means #ukip have 17 seats on #kent_cc. Staggering result. #kccelections