The scores in ascending order were as follows: 83.67 106.09 122.11 127.20 138.11 146.87 156.76 - This one was me. Mid table obscurity. 165.70 171.67 179.09 200.70 215.20 226.76 228.87 231.20
Since there's a nice clear top 5, let's go through them in order.
In fifth place, just nudging past the 200 points mark it's @Benpointer on 200.7. He got the best results on both the Lib Dem seat total and the SNP seat total. Ben knows his yellows!
In fourth place with the best answers on the biggest majority size and the maximum losing percentage and a total of 215.20, it's @IanB2. Ian also got maximum points on two other questions. Well done!
In third place [hangs bronze medal around neck] with 226.76 points, it's @state_go_away They were very good at picking losers, with the best answers for the minimum winning vote margin, the minimum number of votes for a candidate, the number of times Ref beat Con and the number of times Ref lost their deposit (plus maximum points on two other questions!). [Applauds]
In second place [silver medal placed reverently over head] with 228.87 points, it's @James_M. James didn't hit very many best scores (although topped everyone on Labour seats and Labour 3rd-place-or-lower), but scored solidly across the board. Sometimes not putting a foot wrong can take you to the brink of glory -- a safe pair of hands!
And finally, in first place, trouncing the field with 231.2 points, the gold medal is awarded to
Pulpstar was the last person to enter the competition, sneaking in with the permission of the stewards just after the deadline due to Vanilla screwing up their attempt just before the deadline. A full investigation has taken place and after lengthy deliberation at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the entry has been decreed not only valid but also very fucking awesome. Pulpstar gave a top three answer in ELEVEN of the 25 questions. That was the breadth of knowledge and consistency needed to win, and it was a masterclass.
I've asked this previously to zero response, but any PBers, some of whom are very well travelled, been to Foulness?
Am going tomorrow (well today now) for no reason other than it being the only "closed city" (couple of hamlets) in the UK afaik. Tips would be welcome.
I've asked this previously to zero response, but any PBers, some of whom are very well travelled, been to Foulness?
Am going tomorrow (well today now) for no reason other than it being the only "closed city" (couple of hamlets) in the UK afaik. Tips would be welcome.
I've been very close to it in August 2022 when we visited Burnham-on-Crouch in the middle of that dreadful heatwave.
One curiosity about Washington elections: In 1964, a Republican won the Secretary of State position, which is responsible for elections (among other things) - and Republicans, even as the state was trending Democratic, held that office until 2021, when Kim Wyman resigned.
I've asked this previously to zero response, but any PBers, some of whom are very well travelled, been to Foulness?
Am going tomorrow (well today now) for no reason other than it being the only "closed city" (couple of hamlets) in the UK afaik. Tips would be welcome.
I've never been to Foulness although that whole area of isolated spits of land is very weird. The teachers used to blame their position in the league tables on inbreeding.
If you have a chance, check out Bradwell-on-Sea on the other side of the River Crouch. There's the Chapel of Saint Peter on the Wall, this very old, incredibly atmospheric church (sort of the Essex version of Lindisfarne) and this really awesome spooky vibe walking along the coast with the abandoned airfield and the dead nuclear power station.
According to the figures on Wikipedia (which I accept may not be 100% correct at this stage) the final Labour lead over Conservative, to 2 decimal points, is 9.99%. So if anyone bet on it being less than 10% they've won their bet.
The scores in ascending order were as follows: 83.67 106.09 122.11 127.20 138.11 146.87 156.76 - This one was me. Mid table obscurity. 165.70 171.67 179.09 200.70 215.20 226.76 228.87 231.20
Since there's a nice clear top 5, let's go through them in order.
In fifth place, just nudging past the 200 points mark it's @Benpointer on 200.7. He got the best results on both the Lib Dem seat total and the SNP seat total. Ben knows his yellows!
In fourth place with the best answers on the biggest majority size and the maximum losing percentage and a total of 215.20, it's @IanB2. Ian also got maximum points on two other questions. Well done!
In third place [hangs bronze medal around neck] with 226.76 points, it's @state_go_away They were very good at picking losers, with the best answers for the minimum winning vote margin, the minimum number of votes for a candidate, the number of times Ref beat Con and the number of times Ref lost their deposit (plus maximum points on two other questions!). [Applauds]
In second place [silver medal placed reverently over head] with 228.87 points, it's @James_M. James didn't hit very many best scores (although topped everyone on Labour seats and Labour 3rd-place-or-lower), but scored solidly across the board. Sometimes not putting a foot wrong can take you to the brink of glory -- a safe pair of hands!
And finally, in first place, trouncing the field with 231.2 points, the gold medal is awarded to
Pulpstar was the last person to enter the competition, sneaking in with the permission of the stewards just after the deadline due to Vanilla screwing up their attempt just before the deadline. A full investigation has taken place and after lengthy deliberation at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the entry has been decreed not only valid but also very fucking awesome. Pulpstar gave a top three answer in ELEVEN of the 25 questions. That was the breadth of knowledge and consistency needed to win, and it was a masterclass.
Rachael Reeves husband of course was a speech writer for Gordon Brown and now a senior civil servant until recently working in the Cabinet Office. Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest there.
Rachael Reeves husband of course was a speech writer for Gordon Brown and now a senior civil servant until recently working in the Cabinet Office. Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest there.
Are you going to be like this for the next five years?
Rachael Reeves husband of course was a speech writer for Gordon Brown and now a senior civil servant until recently working in the Cabinet Office. Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest there.
Are you going to be like this for the next five years?
What your issue you here. Labour does have a history of keeping it in the family. Benn dynasty, there is a long list of MPs this time around whose parents were MPs / connected to the party leadership.
I don't think I have been overly negative in general e.g. I said I though Timpson and Vallance were very good appointments. I can also see why Starmer is bringing back the likes of Milburn and Alexander into the fold.
Billy the Fysh used to be my MP. I will miss gobbing on his stupid fucking Subaru. The new LibDem looks like a complete non-entity but will be spared the expectoration for now.
Impreza?
4th gen Legacy. I would have voted for him if he had a 22B. Not a joke.
He'd have needed a big f*** off fast lane PPE contract to afford one of those.
Rachael Reeves husband of course was a speech writer for Gordon Brown and now a senior civil servant until recently working in the Cabinet Office. Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest there.
Are you going to be like this for the next five years?
What your issue you here. Labour does have a history of keeping it in the family. Benn family, there is a long list of MPs whose parents were MPs / connected to the party.
OK let's have a quick look at Tory MPs from the 2019 intake who were children, grandchildren, nephews or nieces of Conservative MPs. I have left out spouses.
Victoria Atkins Bill Cash Geoffrey Clinton-Brown Robert Courts Caroline Dineage Richard Drax Philip Dunne George Freeman Bernard Jenkin Andrew Mitchell Jesse Norman Mark Pawsey Victoria Prentiss Tom Tugenhadt Charles Walker Bill Wiggin
I've asked this previously to zero response, but any PBers, some of whom are very well travelled, been to Foulness?
Am going tomorrow (well today now) for no reason other than it being the only "closed city" (couple of hamlets) in the UK afaik. Tips would be welcome.
I've never been to Foulness although that whole area of isolated spits of land is very weird. The teachers used to blame their position in the league tables on inbreeding.
If you have a chance, check out Bradwell-on-Sea on the other side of the River Crouch. There's the Chapel of Saint Peter on the Wall, this very old, incredibly atmospheric church (sort of the Essex version of Lindisfarne) and this really awesome spooky vibe walking along the coast with the abandoned airfield and the dead nuclear power station.
Thanks. I think its highly unlikely due to the relative inaccessibility from Foulness (looks like would be a massive detour due to two rivers in the way and my lack of hovercraft) and my intent to play some kind of golf derivative in Cambridge in the afternoon, but fun to add something for future exploration.
These weird bits of the South East are I think not as known as they ought to be. I'm used to the total ignorance of where I come from in the North East down south of course, but peculiar to find these places so close to London.
Turned out there wasn't really any difference between genders and how they voted. Also Labour didn't do as well with 18-24 as previously, which I thought was quite surprising. Seems like good chunk of young people keen to vote Green instead of Labour. Also, 22% voted Tory or Reform, which perhaps backs up what Leon was banging on about at least a tiny bit.
Tories did really really badly with 25-44. I bet rents / mortgages / student loans. That could be a huge problem for them going forward if they want to try and recover.
England have never lost a penalty shootout under Starmer.
They’ve also never won a game under Starmer, the rugby team lost, all the Brits are out of the singles at Wimbledon and Emma Radacanu did the dirty on poor Andy Murray, all under Starmer.
Am I doing this right?
I was looking at the athletics squad for the Olympics today, the depth of British Athletics isn't in the greatest of shapes, lots of events nobody made the qualifying time / distance or only one did.
GB has relatively overperformed at the last two Games, especially Rio where we bucked the host nation trend and actually increased the medal count after London.
I’ve not really been close to pretty well any of the sports we’re usually good at, but I enjoy watching the Olympics as a sport fan more than a patriot (tbh that goes for football these days too; obviously I want England to succeed but I don’t get hugely exercised either way).
In several sports, the philosophy moved from the fastest & mil best to “nurturing talent”
Which is why a number of leading coaches were fired/left.
Would appreciate sporting index/spreadex settling the % share bets... don't see any reason they can't. They've done the seats!
Relatively small amount of winnings on %share compared to the rest but I just want everything to do with this election done.
(Apart from my back Sunak to be replaced in 2025 or later bet. I've got £45 on now at an average of 45.56 which is enough for me for that sort of medium term longshot, but I still love to recommend it so I'm going to mention yet again like a stuck record. There are so many ways Tory contest can extend to 2025. There's no timetable or anything. You'd have won in 2005. It should not be that long)
A final other thought - I was clicking around sporting index and saw the "virtual sports" bit, where they have basically computer simulated stuff.
To verify, this is a glorified fruit machine, right? They know exactly what the odds are? It's not some kinds of hands off arrangement where the bookies are provided with a computer generated field and have to make the odds themselves?
The latter sounds highly unlikely to me. But because it sounds highly unlikely, maybe I'm wrong and there's a massive edge there if anyone looked at it carefully...?
A final other thought - I was clicking around sporting index and saw the "virtual sports" bit, where they have basically computer simulated stuff.
To verify, this is a glorified fruit machine, right? They know exactly what the odds are? It's not some kinds of hands off arrangement where the bookies are provided with a computer generated field and have to make the odds themselves?
The latter sounds highly unlikely to me. But because it sounds highly unlikely, maybe I'm wrong and there's a massive edge there if anyone looked at it carefully...?
@Dumbosaurus. Yes, it's a glorified fruit machine. The results are generated by a random number generator with fixed percentages. Think of it as a simulation within set parameters.
Lord Ashcroft has more details now from his own exit poll of 16,000 people on Thursday and how they voted.
Starmer Labour won across the board, men and women, all age groups under 65 and every social class, doing best with upper middle class ABs and unskilled working class and unemployed DEs.
The Tories only won pensioners. Under Sunak the Tories did return to doing best amongst ABs though as they have at every general election except 2019 when under Boris the Conservatives did best with C2s. Reform did best with men and C2s and DEs and 45-64s. The LDs did best with women, 35-44s and ABs, the Greens best with women, 18-24s and C1s.
23% of 2019 Conservatives voted Reform, 12% Labour, 7% LD and 52% still voted Tory. 32% of 2019 LDs voted Labour, 11% of 2019 Labour voters voted Green. 13% of 2019 SNP voters voted Labour.
Although the Cons lost 23% of their former voters to Reform, the biggest single bloc, they lost 24% to the other opposition parties combined. So the idea that the Tory vote simply split and moved to Reform is a misleading one. The former group were most concerned about Tory broken promises and the latter group about the Tories being out of touch.
An amazing 22% only decided on the day (obviously this includes both previous DKs and late switchers). But the difference it, and people who decided in the last few days, made to the balance of support is marginal, except for Labour. There was a tiny break in favour of the Tories, but the biggest shift was a rise in LibDem and Green support and a drift away from Labour. This will be part at least of why the polls overestimated the Labour share.
Indeed, Labour started the campaign with nearly half of those who had already made up their mind, but only picked up about a quarter of everyone else, to end up with a third of the vote overall. Worth thinking about, that.
Tactical voting was huge, comprising nearly a third of Labour votes and nearly a half of LibDem ones. In numerical terms this means that Labour won more tactical votes. For comparison just over a quarter of Tory votes claim to be tactical, as well.
The only voters who put tax as one of their top five issues were Reform voters, and only 4% of them put it top. This suggests that the relentless focus on tax by the Tories might have been an error? Across all voters, the NHS, cost of living, and immigration were the top three issues, each chosen by about 15%.
Of the voters the Tories lost, only 44% are prepared at this stage to think that they might vote Tory next time, rising to about half of Tory to Reform switchers.
The LibDems pulled over almost as many Con Remain voters as Labour, underpinning their gains in the south. Possibly, Labour’s silence on Brexit helped the LDs back into the game?
Reform voters are anti-multiculturalism, the Green movement, social liberalism and immigration, while Tory voters are indifferent to most of these with only a weak dislike of immigration. Tory voters like capitalism more than anyone else; Green and SNP voters dislike it.
F1: between being rather tired and not having time to start the F1 stuff yesterday the pre-race tosh may be a little later than usual. Was surprised that the Mercedes locked out the front row.
The LibDem vote only rose modestly during the campaign, and that usually happens given the extra publicity they get. What is striking - supported by the Ashcroft data - is that they did extraordinarily well at getting the extra support where they needed it.
This backs what I was saying about the polls during midterm - back then, Labour was the default response from people unhappy about the government (from the left) - as the election approached, by and large people worked out how best to vote in their own seat. The tactical voting websites don’t appear to have been that influential, since there are tons of examples (Newton Abbot being an obvious one) there the tactical voting advice was mixed, yet people very clearly knew that LibDem was the right choice to make locally.
One curiosity about Washington elections: In 1964, a Republican won the Secretary of State position, which is responsible for elections (among other things) - and Republicans, even as the state was trending Democratic, held that office until 2021, when Kim Wyman resigned.
That is interesting. I wonder if the same sort of thing was true in any other states.
I believe it is, as I remember reading somewhere that voters tend toward putting the opposition in their state in charge of elections. Maybe US electors aren’t as dumb as we think.
The LibDem vote only rose modestly during the campaign, and that usually happens given the extra publicity they get. What is striking - supported by the Ashcroft data - is that they did extraordinarily well at getting the extra support where they needed it.
This backs what I was saying about the polls during midterm - back then, Labour was the default response from people unhappy about the government (from the left) - as the election approached, by and large people worked out how best to vote in their own seat. The tactical voting websites don’t appear to have been that influential, since there are tons of examples (Newton Abbot being an obvious one) there the tactical voting advice was mixed, yet people very clearly knew that LibDem was the right choice to make locally.
Might sound odd, but they also owe it slightly to the 2019 result, whereby the increase in their vote share while flopping in terms of seats did much of the sorting out with Labour in terms of tactical voting - with voters knowing that if they were south west of Watling Street, chances are you should tactically vote Lib Dem, and North, Labour, with the odd exception.
Some things transcend party politics, and national security is one of them. IIRC both Tugendhat and Jarvis served in the military, and understand the need for a proper handover of such matters.
F1: between being rather tired and not having time to start the F1 stuff yesterday the pre-race tosh may be a little later than usual. Was surprised that the Mercedes locked out the front row.
Three Brits the top three qualifiers for the British GP!
The LibDem vote only rose modestly during the campaign, and that usually happens given the extra publicity they get. What is striking - supported by the Ashcroft data - is that they did extraordinarily well at getting the extra support where they needed it.
This backs what I was saying about the polls during midterm - back then, Labour was the default response from people unhappy about the government (from the left) - as the election approached, by and large people worked out how best to vote in their own seat. The tactical voting websites don’t appear to have been that influential, since there are tons of examples (Newton Abbot being an obvious one) there the tactical voting advice was mixed, yet people very clearly knew that LibDem was the right choice to make locally.
This is right, Ian. I wonder also how many informal agreements were entered into between Labour and the LDs, and to what extent it helped.
In my own constituency of Tewkesbury, Labour had a fairly decent representation before the GE and might well have targeted the seat with some success, but the candidate turned out to be little more than a paper nomination, and she finished a poor fourth behind Reform (whose own candidate was a last minute entry).
During the campaign it soon became apparent that the anti-Tory vote was going to the LD, and he won handily.
I think I can detect a similar pattern elsewhere, but don't know the constituencies well enough to be sure.
I've asked this previously to zero response, but any PBers, some of whom are very well travelled, been to Foulness?
Am going tomorrow (well today now) for no reason other than it being the only "closed city" (couple of hamlets) in the UK afaik. Tips would be welcome.
I've never been to Foulness although that whole area of isolated spits of land is very weird. The teachers used to blame their position in the league tables on inbreeding.
If you have a chance, check out Bradwell-on-Sea on the other side of the River Crouch. There's the Chapel of Saint Peter on the Wall, this very old, incredibly atmospheric church (sort of the Essex version of Lindisfarne) and this really awesome spooky vibe walking along the coast with the abandoned airfield and the dead nuclear power station.
Thanks. I think its highly unlikely due to the relative inaccessibility from Foulness (looks like would be a massive detour due to two rivers in the way and my lack of hovercraft) and my intent to play some kind of golf derivative in Cambridge in the afternoon, but fun to add something for future exploration.
These weird bits of the South East are I think not as known as they ought to be. I'm used to the total ignorance of where I come from in the North East down south of course, but peculiar to find these places so close to London.
When I walked the coast, I found parts of the east coast to be very boring - especially the county I accidentally dubbed 'Lincolnshite' on my website, and on local radio. The Suffolk and Essex coasts were a bit of a trial to walk around due to the estuaries (the Crouch and Reach being the worst), but the stretch of Essex coast around Bradwell was superb. A vast, compelling flat emptiness.
F1: between being rather tired and not having time to start the F1 stuff yesterday the pre-race tosh may be a little later than usual. Was surprised that the Mercedes locked out the front row.
Three Brits the top three qualifiers for the British GP!
Here's a question: has there ever been an F1 GP without a British driver?
Only 16 apparently; including the early Indy 500s that counted for F1, and the 2005 debacle. I wouldn't count that though, as British drivers were there and did qualify, and it was only the tyre messup that stopped them starting. Aside from Indy, you need to go back to 1951!
The LibDem vote only rose modestly during the campaign, and that usually happens given the extra publicity they get. What is striking - supported by the Ashcroft data - is that they did extraordinarily well at getting the extra support where they needed it.
This backs what I was saying about the polls during midterm - back then, Labour was the default response from people unhappy about the government (from the left) - as the election approached, by and large people worked out how best to vote in their own seat. The tactical voting websites don’t appear to have been that influential, since there are tons of examples (Newton Abbot being an obvious one) there the tactical voting advice was mixed, yet people very clearly knew that LibDem was the right choice to make locally.
Might sound odd, but they also owe it slightly to the 2019 result, whereby the increase in their vote share while flopping in terms of seats did much of the sorting out with Labour in terms of tactical voting - with voters knowing that if they were south west of Watling Street, chances are you should tactically vote Lib Dem, and North, Labour, with the odd exception.
An interesting point. LibDem performance in the south relative to Labour is worthy of more research.
A possible case of what you suggest is Chichester. Historically the LibDems always ran the Tories a strong but distant second. After the coalition they were punished by dropping into third place behind Labour, and in the 2017 election it looks like they gave tactical voting for Labour a try, but got nowhere near. In 2019 this switched around with the LibDem vote rising 11%, regaining second but still 21,000 votes behind. But this clarity of being the challenger was enough to give the new LibDem MP a majority of 12,000; one of the notable results of the night - a 31% swing !!
My perception is that there are also examples where the LibDems came from third to strong second. But I haven’t looked into it thoroughly.
I've asked this previously to zero response, but any PBers, some of whom are very well travelled, been to Foulness?
Am going tomorrow (well today now) for no reason other than it being the only "closed city" (couple of hamlets) in the UK afaik. Tips would be welcome.
I've never been to Foulness although that whole area of isolated spits of land is very weird. The teachers used to blame their position in the league tables on inbreeding.
If you have a chance, check out Bradwell-on-Sea on the other side of the River Crouch. There's the Chapel of Saint Peter on the Wall, this very old, incredibly atmospheric church (sort of the Essex version of Lindisfarne) and this really awesome spooky vibe walking along the coast with the abandoned airfield and the dead nuclear power station.
Thanks. I think its highly unlikely due to the relative inaccessibility from Foulness (looks like would be a massive detour due to two rivers in the way and my lack of hovercraft) and my intent to play some kind of golf derivative in Cambridge in the afternoon, but fun to add something for future exploration.
These weird bits of the South East are I think not as known as they ought to be. I'm used to the total ignorance of where I come from in the North East down south of course, but peculiar to find these places so close to London.
St. Peter's on the wall is built on the walls of the Roman Saxon shore fort of Othona. It was built by St. Cedd, who came from Lindisfarne. It is stark and eerily beautiful. It is certainly one of the oldest surviving buildings in the country. Definitely recommend a visit.
The LibDem vote only rose modestly during the campaign, and that usually happens given the extra publicity they get. What is striking - supported by the Ashcroft data - is that they did extraordinarily well at getting the extra support where they needed it.
This backs what I was saying about the polls during midterm - back then, Labour was the default response from people unhappy about the government (from the left) - as the election approached, by and large people worked out how best to vote in their own seat. The tactical voting websites don’t appear to have been that influential, since there are tons of examples (Newton Abbot being an obvious one) there the tactical voting advice was mixed, yet people very clearly knew that LibDem was the right choice to make locally.
Might sound odd, but they also owe it slightly to the 2019 result, whereby the increase in their vote share while flopping in terms of seats did much of the sorting out with Labour in terms of tactical voting - with voters knowing that if they were south west of Watling Street, chances are you should tactically vote Lib Dem, and North, Labour, with the odd exception.
An interesting point. LibDem performance in the south relative to Labour is worthy of more research.
A possible case of what you suggest is Chichester. Historically the LibDems always ran the Tories a strong but distant second. After the coalition they were punished by dropping into third place behind Labour, and in the 2017 election it looks like they gave tactical voting for Labour a try, but got nowhere near. In 2019 this switched around with the LibDem vote rising 11%, regaining second but still 21,000 votes behind. But this clarity of being the challenger was enough to give the new LibDem MP a majority of 12,000; one of the notable results of the night - a 31% swing !!
My perception is that there are also examples where the LibDems came from third to strong second. But I haven’t looked into it thoroughly.
I dare say more thorough analysis won't be too long in coming, but I strongly suspect that Lab-LD tactical voting happened in both directions virtually everywhere that one of those parties was identified as the obvious challenger to the incumbent Tory. Hence, of course, the feeble increase in LD vote share but the huge increase in seats.
In the former Conservative safe seat where I live, both the peeling off of votes to Reform and the Lib Dems losing a third of their 2019 voters was required to get Labour over the winning line.
Interestingly, it's possible that the same thing did not happen (at least to such a great extent) with the Green vote. Green share here increased, and certainly when the early results were coming in from the North East it seemed to me that the Greens were pretty consistently out polling the Lib Dems in those Labour holds and gains. This may mean that we discover going forward that not only have the Greens won a lot of new supporters, but that their vote is sticky. 6-7% could now be the irreducible core of Green support.
Re: my previous comments on the Greens. I'm willing to venture one guess as to what'll happen at the next election, and that's for the Greens to hold the four seats they now have and make some additional gains. Look out for places where they are building strength in local government over the next few years, and the MPs will follow. Look also at the precedent of what just happened with their defence - a lot of people thought Brighton Pavilion was back in play when Caroline Lucas decided to retire, coupled with controversies that caused the Greens to be severely punished in local elections, but Sian Berry still won with a 14k majority (now safer than the safest Tory seat in the country, BTW.) I think people are going to like having Green MPs, and their vote will hold up.
Turned out there wasn't really any difference between genders and how they voted. Also Labour didn't do as well with 18-24 as previously, which I thought was quite surprising. Seems like good chunk of young people keen to vote Green instead of Labour. Also, 22% voted Tory or Reform, which perhaps backs up what Leon was banging on about at least a tiny bit.
Tories did really really badly with 25-44. I bet rents / mortgages / student loans. That could be a huge problem for them going forward if they want to try and recover.
Reform on 8% with the 18-24 ages hardly backs up @Leon jizzing over the youth as stormtroopers for the far right. Nearly twice as many were for the Greens. They were less enthusiastic for Labour than the older ranges, and did have more "other', perhaps the Gaza independents.
The other remarkable is how even demographically the LD vote is, varying from 14% in AB to 9% in E, and fairly even across the ages. The prejudice on here that LD voters are all shopping in Waitrose isn't correct.
This exit poll only tells us how people voted who did actually vote. It tells us nothing about the inclinations of those who didn't vote. In particular it doesn't tell us why they didn't vote, and with the overall turnout a shade under 60% turnout was almost certainly under 50% for Millenials and Gen Z, perhaps much lower. That isn't good for democracy.
Re: my previous comments on the Greens. I'm willing to venture one guess as to what'll happen at the next election, and that's for the Greens to hold the four seats they now have and make some additional gains. Look out for places where they are building strength in local government over the next few years, and the MPs will follow. Look also at the precedent of what just happened with their defence - a lot of people thought Brighton Pavilion was back in play when Caroline Lucas decided to retire, coupled with controversies that caused the Greens to be severely punished in local elections, but Sian Berry still won with a 14k majority (now safer than the safest Tory seat in the country, BTW.) I think people are going to like having Green MPs, and their vote will hold up.
Probably right, but note too that the Greens look to be a rather odd coalition of anti-shit campaigners, pansexual socialists, and pro-Gaza militants.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
Re: my previous comments on the Greens. I'm willing to venture one guess as to what'll happen at the next election, and that's for the Greens to hold the four seats they now have and make some additional gains. Look out for places where they are building strength in local government over the next few years, and the MPs will follow. Look also at the precedent of what just happened with their defence - a lot of people thought Brighton Pavilion was back in play when Caroline Lucas decided to retire, coupled with controversies that caused the Greens to be severely punished in local elections, but Sian Berry still won with a 14k majority (now safer than the safest Tory seat in the country, BTW.) I think people are going to like having Green MPs, and their vote will hold up.
Probably right, but note too that the Greens look to be a rather odd coalition of anti-shit campaigners, pansexual socialists, and pro-Gaza militants.
That’s a very broad coalition for a small party.
Yes but those vary by area. In ecclesiastical terms are congregationalists, as opposed the the hierarchical Labour and Conservative parties.
This is fine in opposition, less so if wanting to form a government, but nobody is expecting a Green government any time soon.
Liz Truss never lost a general election as leader. I think that's important.
If she had stayed a few days longer, the resulting collapse of the UK pension system and a total meltdown in all financial markets would have ensured her defenestration.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
Reforms problem in terms of inefficient vote at FPTP is that they have a high floor with significant vote nearly everywhere, but a low ceiling. There are many who agree with their nihilistic line, but far more voters for whom they are anathema.
LD succeeded by targeting Labour and Green* voters to tactically vote LD, but Reform do not have that option.
*LDs do well with the light Greens, hence the campaign to clean up rivers and coasts.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
The Lib Dems could hardly be more delighted. They achieved all of their electoral targets and are well placed to expand their overall support, as we should see in the next set of local elections and the Scottish Parliament.
As RefUk will find out, and as the Lib Dems know from bitter experience, lots of votes but no seats doesn´t cut it.
I've asked this previously to zero response, but any PBers, some of whom are very well travelled, been to Foulness?
Am going tomorrow (well today now) for no reason other than it being the only "closed city" (couple of hamlets) in the UK afaik. Tips would be welcome.
I've never been to Foulness although that whole area of isolated spits of land is very weird. The teachers used to blame their position in the league tables on inbreeding.
If you have a chance, check out Bradwell-on-Sea on the other side of the River Crouch. There's the Chapel of Saint Peter on the Wall, this very old, incredibly atmospheric church (sort of the Essex version of Lindisfarne) and this really awesome spooky vibe walking along the coast with the abandoned airfield and the dead nuclear power station.
Thanks. I think its highly unlikely due to the relative inaccessibility from Foulness (looks like would be a massive detour due to two rivers in the way and my lack of hovercraft) and my intent to play some kind of golf derivative in Cambridge in the afternoon, but fun to add something for future exploration.
These weird bits of the South East are I think not as known as they ought to be. I'm used to the total ignorance of where I come from in the North East down south of course, but peculiar to find these places so close to London.
When I walked the coast, I found parts of the east coast to be very boring - especially the county I accidentally dubbed 'Lincolnshite' on my website, and on local radio. The Suffolk and Essex coasts were a bit of a trial to walk around due to the estuaries (the Crouch and Reach being the worst), but the stretch of Essex coast around Bradwell was superb. A vast, compelling flat emptiness.
Then again, I quite like the Fens...
Flat and wet has a sort of creepy fascination for me. I like driving over the Kings Sedgemoor Drain and Huntspill river and past the Tewkesbury flood plain.
This clash is now inevitable. Millions of normally Tory voters didn't vote Tory this time - going to Lab/LD/Reform/Stay home.
The LDs are now firmly identified in our minds as centre left, not centre right. History has conspired to make them always the alternative to Tory not Labour hopes. That won't change soon.
SFAICS about half of Tory defectors went Reformwards, the other half went Lab/LD/Stay home.
The choice is horrible electorally, but if Tories link with Reform many of the defectors are not coming back (I am one).
The centre left Lab/LD do not overlap electorally. A united centre right is both necessary and, it seems, impossible.
IMHO the Tories need to regroup round One Nation ideas, accept they are out for 10 years and wait for events to catch up.
Starmer is (famous last words) a great deal better than they realise.
Away from the GE Competition, I made some specific predictions that I think are worth revisiting.
1. Conservatives would beat Reform by 10pp. Verdict: near miss. I knew the more excitable Reform-minded people would end up disappointed but it was closer than I thought. 2. Lib Dems would end up disappointed with their seat total. Specifically, I predicted 42 seats. Verdict: totally wrong. This prediction was bound up in the notion that a stack of Lib Dem VI was people who would actually vote Conservative. I suspect I was right about that, but what I missed, I think, was the extent of tactical voting for Lib Dems from Labour VI. I strongly suspect that this vote will unwind from the Lib Dems unless they do something to keep themselves noticed in a positive way. It'll be tough. 3. Lib Dems won't come close in my seat. I mean, this was always a forlorn hope, and I think there's a lesson for PBers to learn about trusting the perceptions of campaigners on here. We had the same issue with South Devon, where the strong impression was that it was staying safely Tory. Both impressions were way off the mark, and I tried to gently discourage people from betting on Lib Dem in this seat because it was very clear to me that this was the case where I was. Verdict: spot on. 4. Labour's VI would largely hold up. Specifically I had in mind a score in the low 40s. Verdict: no fucking way. 5. The Greens wouldn't win their rural target seats and would take Bristol and Brighton only. Verdict: disastrously wrong. I did caveat this prediction with the fact that I was getting it from an unreliable source, but I nonetheless believed it strongly. I was wrong.
I think the verdict is I did badly.
On the unwind of TV. In 2001, the LDs made additional gains in some seats in seats which had been close in 97. See Davey whose majority was 56 in 97 but went up to 5 figures in 01. They also took Guildford in 01 which the Tories had held in 97. If there’s a remaining Labour vote to squeeze, I could see some of these seats increasing majorities. Of course a different factor this time will be the dynamics in the Tory and RefUK votes - unknown!
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
To think that the LibDems will not be 'super delighted' with boosting their seat numbers eightfold, to the highest in a century or so, is seriously misreading the results.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that their third party status is under threat from a party 67 seats behind them. The only way that RefUK have taken over from the LibDems is as the party of the wasted vote - a title I am sure the LibDems will be happy to relinquish.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
The Lib Dems could hardly be more delighted. They achieved all of their electoral targets and are well placed to expand their overall support, as we should see in the next set of local elections and the Scottish Parliament.
As RefUk will find out, and as the Lib Dems know from bitter experience, lots of votes but no seats doesn´t cut it.
For now the centre left has tactical voting sorted; this is formidable in its effect. The reverse of the 1980s.
The Reform vote is limited necessarily: centrists won't vote for them. They voted for these parties for MEPs who didn't matter, and agreed over Brexit. But the great majority of Brexit voters did not vote Reform, and are not going to.
OT Tokyo Governor election today. I'm strongly anti-NHK but I would have a hard time choosing.
They're gonna split the vote!
The Anti-NHK Party was founded on opposition to the TV licence fee. This is a stunt by which they got access to lots of campaign poster sites, some of which they sold on to donors.
The LibDem vote only rose modestly during the campaign, and that usually happens given the extra publicity they get. What is striking - supported by the Ashcroft data - is that they did extraordinarily well at getting the extra support where they needed it.
This backs what I was saying about the polls during midterm - back then, Labour was the default response from people unhappy about the government (from the left) - as the election approached, by and large people worked out how best to vote in their own seat. The tactical voting websites don’t appear to have been that influential, since there are tons of examples (Newton Abbot being an obvious one) there the tactical voting advice was mixed, yet people very clearly knew that LibDem was the right choice to make locally.
It’s hard to underestimate the importance of having a local base too. The Lib Dems do local well, and the work put in gives people a muscle memory of voting for them.
Away from the GE Competition, I made some specific predictions that I think are worth revisiting.
1. Conservatives would beat Reform by 10pp. Verdict: near miss. I knew the more excitable Reform-minded people would end up disappointed but it was closer than I thought. 2. Lib Dems would end up disappointed with their seat total. Specifically, I predicted 42 seats. Verdict: totally wrong. This prediction was bound up in the notion that a stack of Lib Dem VI was people who would actually vote Conservative. I suspect I was right about that, but what I missed, I think, was the extent of tactical voting for Lib Dems from Labour VI. I strongly suspect that this vote will unwind from the Lib Dems unless they do something to keep themselves noticed in a positive way. It'll be tough. 3. Lib Dems won't come close in my seat. I mean, this was always a forlorn hope, and I think there's a lesson for PBers to learn about trusting the perceptions of campaigners on here. We had the same issue with South Devon, where the strong impression was that it was staying safely Tory. Both impressions were way off the mark, and I tried to gently discourage people from betting on Lib Dem in this seat because it was very clear to me that this was the case where I was. Verdict: spot on. 4. Labour's VI would largely hold up. Specifically I had in mind a score in the low 40s. Verdict: no fucking way. 5. The Greens wouldn't win their rural target seats and would take Bristol and Brighton only. Verdict: disastrously wrong. I did caveat this prediction with the fact that I was getting it from an unreliable source, but I nonetheless believed it strongly. I was wrong.
I think the verdict is I did badly.
I was similar on all 5 positions. I was expecting more near misses for the LDs.
The rural Greens are interesting, but also an example of careful seat targeting and Tactical voting.
Turned out there wasn't really any difference between genders and how they voted. Also Labour didn't do as well with 18-24 as previously, which I thought was quite surprising. Seems like good chunk of young people keen to vote Green instead of Labour. Also, 22% voted Tory or Reform, which perhaps backs up what Leon was banging on about at least a tiny bit.
Tories did really really badly with 25-44. I bet rents / mortgages / student loans. That could be a huge problem for them going forward if they want to try and recover.
Not much sign of the Hot Young Fascist phenomenon there.
I see the Telegraph and Labour have got the vapours about the mainland version of the Democratic Unionist Party that took several of their seats on Friday and came close to getting others.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
The Lib Dems could hardly be more delighted. They achieved all of their electoral targets and are well placed to expand their overall support, as we should see in the next set of local elections and the Scottish Parliament.
As RefUk will find out, and as the Lib Dems know from bitter experience, lots of votes but no seats doesn´t cut it.
For now the centre left has tactical voting sorted; this is formidable in its effect. The reverse of the 1980s.
The Reform vote is limited necessarily: centrists won't vote for them. They voted for these parties for MEPs who didn't matter, and agreed over Brexit. But the great majority of Brexit voters did not vote Reform, and are not going to.
I don't know. Farage hijacking the Conservative name could help him immeasurably. He could promote his othering agenda, add in a few nuggets for traditional Tories and RedWallers, so an assault on foreigners, advocate hanging and flogging, the promotion of Grammar schools, national service and a regressive tax policy and hey presto HYUFD Tories assume a new home. And the name is right too.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
The LibDems have some consolation in the results making a very strong case for PR. Labour’s share of the vote is the lowest won by a post-war single party government.
I don’t think Farage will care about the number of MPs. It helps rather than hinders his mode of grievance politics, and he’s not really interested in Parliament (unless he’s in charge). He will be delighted to have taken so many votes from the Conservatives.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
To think that the LibDems will not be 'super delighted' with boosting their seat numbers eightfold, to the highest in a century or so, is seriously misreading the results.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that their third party status is under threat from a party 67 seats behind them. The only way that RefUK have taken over from the LibDems is as the party of the wasted vote - a title I am sure the LibDems will be happy to relinquish.
It's a stunning result for the Lib Dems in that respect. 70 MPs and all the office space, staff and incumbency that brings.
I can seem them doing much better in the next election in terms of vote share, even if their seats stay static or even fall. They are a big threat to Labour if they start to split their vote, and a massive obstacle to the Conservatives winning the shires back.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
To think that the LibDems will not be 'super delighted' with boosting their seat numbers eightfold, to the highest in a century or so, is seriously misreading the results.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that their third party status is under threat from a party 67 seats behind them. The only way that RefUK have taken over from the LibDems is as the party of the wasted vote - a title I am sure the LibDems will be happy to relinquish.
+1
A further note: the Lib Dems are not under threat from the Greens, excepting the fact that strong Green organisation in some rural areas where the Lib Dems have been historically weak will hinder LD attempts at expansion. And Green local strength is still rather limited.
The Greens seem to be good at targeting uber-progressive urban cores, and the crumbling rural redoubts of clapped out old Tories where folk are more bothered about deficient bus services and ugly pylons than Gaza and whether or not trans women are women. Are there actually any contests anywhere in the country where the Greens are trying to seize territory off the Yellows?
The LibDem vote only rose modestly during the campaign, and that usually happens given the extra publicity they get. What is striking - supported by the Ashcroft data - is that they did extraordinarily well at getting the extra support where they needed it.
This backs what I was saying about the polls during midterm - back then, Labour was the default response from people unhappy about the government (from the left) - as the election approached, by and large people worked out how best to vote in their own seat. The tactical voting websites don’t appear to have been that influential, since there are tons of examples (Newton Abbot being an obvious one) there the tactical voting advice was mixed, yet people very clearly knew that LibDem was the right choice to make locally.
It’s hard to underestimate the importance of having a local base too. The Lib Dems do local well, and the work put in gives people a muscle memory of voting for them.
This is why I have a funny feeling about the Scottish Greens. If you're a woke Millenial cycling indy supporter, they are the natural successor party to the SNP as they revert to their pre'14 Tartan Tories status.
The Greens already have a decent base of councillors in Scottish cities, plus the proportional nature of Holyrood gives them a bigger voice.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
To think that the LibDems will not be 'super delighted' with boosting their seat numbers eightfold, to the highest in a century or so, is seriously misreading the results.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that their third party status is under threat from a party 67 seats behind them. The only way that RefUK have taken over from the LibDems is as the party of the wasted vote - a title I am sure the LibDems will be happy to relinquish.
+1
A further note: the Lib Dems are not under threat from the Greens,
not until they get into coalition again and have to take some difficult decisions.
Lord Ashcroft has more details now from his own exit poll of 16,000 people on Thursday and how they voted.
Starmer Labour won across the board, men and women, all age groups under 65 and every social class, doing best with upper middle class ABs and unskilled working class and unemployed DEs.
The Tories only won pensioners. Under Sunak the Tories did return to doing best amongst ABs though as they have at every general election except 2019 when under Boris the Conservatives did best with C2s. Reform did best with men and C2s and DEs and 45-64s. The LDs did best with women, 35-44s and ABs, the Greens best with women, 18-24s and C1s.
23% of 2019 Conservatives voted Reform, 12% Labour, 7% LD and 52% still voted Tory. 32% of 2019 LDs voted Labour, 11% of 2019 Labour voters voted Green. 13% of 2019 SNP voters voted Labour.
Although the Cons lost 23% of their former voters to Reform, the biggest single bloc, they lost 24% to the other opposition parties combined. So the idea that the Tory vote simply split and moved to Reform is a misleading one. The former group were most concerned about Tory broken promises and the latter group about the Tories being out of touch.
An amazing 22% only decided on the day (obviously this includes both previous DKs and late switchers). But the difference it, and people who decided in the last few days, made to the balance of support is marginal, except for Labour. There was a tiny break in favour of the Tories, but the biggest shift was a rise in LibDem and Green support and a drift away from Labour. This will be part at least of why the polls overestimated the Labour share.
Indeed, Labour started the campaign with nearly half of those who had already made up their mind, but only picked up about a quarter of everyone else, to end up with a third of the vote overall. Worth thinking about, that.
Tactical voting was huge, comprising nearly a third of Labour votes and nearly a half of LibDem ones. In numerical terms this means that Labour won more tactical votes. For comparison just over a quarter of Tory votes claim to be tactical, as well.
The only voters who put tax as one of their top five issues were Reform voters, and only 4% of them put it top. This suggests that the relentless focus on tax by the Tories might have been an error? Across all voters, the NHS, cost of living, and immigration were the top three issues, each chosen by about 15%.
Of the voters the Tories lost, only 44% are prepared at this stage to think that they might vote Tory next time, rising to about half of Tory to Reform switchers.
The LibDems pulled over almost as many Con Remain voters as Labour, underpinning their gains in the south. Possibly, Labour’s silence on Brexit helped the LDs back into the game?
Reform voters are anti-multiculturalism, the Green movement, social liberalism and immigration, while Tory voters are indifferent to most of these with only a weak dislike of immigration. Tory voters like capitalism more than anyone else; Green and SNP voters dislike it.
Interesting stuff. The main thing I get from that is that Reform UK are anti-immigration/multiculturalism voters. That’s overwhelmingly their motivation to vote. The perceived failure of the Conservatives on the issue is why they switched from Con to Ref.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
To think that the LibDems will not be 'super delighted' with boosting their seat numbers eightfold, to the highest in a century or so, is seriously misreading the results.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that their third party status is under threat from a party 67 seats behind them. The only way that RefUK have taken over from the LibDems is as the party of the wasted vote - a title I am sure the LibDems will be happy to relinquish.
It's a stunning result for the Lib Dems in that respect. 70 MPs and all the office space, staff and incumbency that brings.
I can seem them doing much better in the next election in terms of vote share, even if their seats stay static or even fall. They are a big threat to Labour if they start to split their vote, and a massive obstacle to the Conservatives winning the shires back.
Southern England is the Conservative power base, the same way that Labour needs the cities. The Tories can't win again without a solid grip on the large bulk of the South outside London.
If the Yellow Wall holds, the Tories will be out of power for a very, very long time. I doubt after their previous disaster that the Lib Dems will enter a Coalition with anyone again, save perhaps in exchange for the guarantee of PR. And certainly not with the Conservatives.
Away from the GE Competition, I made some specific predictions that I think are worth revisiting.
1. Conservatives would beat Reform by 10pp. Verdict: near miss. I knew the more excitable Reform-minded people would end up disappointed but it was closer than I thought. 2. Lib Dems would end up disappointed with their seat total. Specifically, I predicted 42 seats. Verdict: totally wrong. This prediction was bound up in the notion that a stack of Lib Dem VI was people who would actually vote Conservative. I suspect I was right about that, but what I missed, I think, was the extent of tactical voting for Lib Dems from Labour VI. I strongly suspect that this vote will unwind from the Lib Dems unless they do something to keep themselves noticed in a positive way. It'll be tough. 3. Lib Dems won't come close in my seat. I mean, this was always a forlorn hope, and I think there's a lesson for PBers to learn about trusting the perceptions of campaigners on here. We had the same issue with South Devon, where the strong impression was that it was staying safely Tory. Both impressions were way off the mark, and I tried to gently discourage people from betting on Lib Dem in this seat because it was very clear to me that this was the case where I was. Verdict: spot on. 4. Labour's VI would largely hold up. Specifically I had in mind a score in the low 40s. Verdict: no fucking way. 5. The Greens wouldn't win their rural target seats and would take Bristol and Brighton only. Verdict: disastrously wrong. I did caveat this prediction with the fact that I was getting it from an unreliable source, but I nonetheless believed it strongly. I was wrong.
I think the verdict is I did badly.
On the unwind of TV. In 2001, the LDs made additional gains in some seats in seats which had been close in 97. See Davey whose majority was 56 in 97 but went up to 5 figures in 01. They also took Guildford in 01 which the Tories had held in 97. If there’s a remaining Labour vote to squeeze, I could see some of these seats increasing majorities. Of course a different factor this time will be the dynamics in the Tory and RefUK votes - unknown!
Agree. This is probably the high-water mark for Labour meaning their vote will be more squeezable in the new LibDem seats. It is noticeable that, despite the comments of one Labour poster here, who kept telling us they could win Didcot & Wantage, their share actually went down in the seat.
The LibDem vote only rose modestly during the campaign, and that usually happens given the extra publicity they get. What is striking - supported by the Ashcroft data - is that they did extraordinarily well at getting the extra support where they needed it.
This backs what I was saying about the polls during midterm - back then, Labour was the default response from people unhappy about the government (from the left) - as the election approached, by and large people worked out how best to vote in their own seat. The tactical voting websites don’t appear to have been that influential, since there are tons of examples (Newton Abbot being an obvious one) there the tactical voting advice was mixed, yet people very clearly knew that LibDem was the right choice to make locally.
It’s hard to underestimate the importance of having a local base too. The Lib Dems do local well, and the work put in gives people a muscle memory of voting for them.
This is why I have a funny feeling about the Scottish Greens. If you're a woke Millenial cycling indy supporter, they are the natural successor party to the SNP as they revert to their pre'14 Tartan Tories status.
The Greens already have a decent base of councillors in Scottish cities, plus the proportional nature of Holyrood gives them a bigger voice.
They might even start taking the environment as a primary issue, as the climate crisis progresses. (TBF it was the key to their split with the Yousaf administration.)
I see the Telegraph and Labour have got the vapours about the mainland version of the Democratic Unionist Party that took several of their seats on Friday and came close to getting others.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
To think that the LibDems will not be 'super delighted' with boosting their seat numbers eightfold, to the highest in a century or so, is seriously misreading the results.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that their third party status is under threat from a party 67 seats behind them. The only way that RefUK have taken over from the LibDems is as the party of the wasted vote - a title I am sure the LibDems will be happy to relinquish.
+1
A further note: the Lib Dems are not under threat from the Greens,
not until they get into coalition again and have to take some difficult decisions.
Which is why the Lib Dems are unlikely to enter another Coalition, except perhaps in exchange for electoral reform, and they certainly won't prop up the Tories again.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
The Lib Dems could hardly be more delighted. They achieved all of their electoral targets and are well placed to expand their overall support, as we should see in the next set of local elections and the Scottish Parliament.
As RefUk will find out, and as the Lib Dems know from bitter experience, lots of votes but no seats doesn´t cut it.
For now the centre left has tactical voting sorted; this is formidable in its effect. The reverse of the 1980s.
The Reform vote is limited necessarily: centrists won't vote for them. They voted for these parties for MEPs who didn't matter, and agreed over Brexit. But the great majority of Brexit voters did not vote Reform, and are not going to.
I don't know. Farage hijacking the Conservative name could help him immeasurably. He could promote his othering agenda, add in a few nuggets for traditional Tories and RedWallers, so an assault on foreigners, advocate hanging and flogging, the promotion of Grammar schools, national service and a regressive tax policy and hey presto HYUFD Tories assume a new home. And the name is right too.
Just ask @Dura_Ace on the corporate advantages of rebadging jamjars.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
To think that the LibDems will not be 'super delighted' with boosting their seat numbers eightfold, to the highest in a century or so, is seriously misreading the results.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that their third party status is under threat from a party 67 seats behind them. The only way that RefUK have taken over from the LibDems is as the party of the wasted vote - a title I am sure the LibDems will be happy to relinquish.
It's a stunning result for the Lib Dems in that respect. 70 MPs and all the office space, staff and incumbency that brings.
I can seem them doing much better in the next election in terms of vote share, even if their seats stay static or even fall. They are a big threat to Labour if they start to split their vote, and a massive obstacle to the Conservatives winning the shires back.
Southern England is the Conservative power base, the same way that Labour needs the cities. The Tories can't win again without a solid grip on the large bulk of the South outside London.
If the Yellow Wall holds, the Tories will be out of power for a very, very long time. I doubt after their previous disaster that the Lib Dems will enter a Coalition with anyone again, save perhaps in exchange for the guarantee of PR. And certainly not with the Conservatives.
The numbers may give them little choice, for example if Labour fall twenty short and most of that twenty are newly elected members of Blackburns exciting new Democratic Unionist Party.
This clash is now inevitable. Millions of normally Tory voters didn't vote Tory this time - going to Lab/LD/Reform/Stay home.
The LDs are now firmly identified in our minds as centre left, not centre right. History has conspired to make them always the alternative to Tory not Labour hopes. That won't change soon.
SFAICS about half of Tory defectors went Reformwards, the other half went Lab/LD/Stay home.
The choice is horrible electorally, but if Tories link with Reform many of the defectors are not coming back (I am one).
The centre left Lab/LD do not overlap electorally. A united centre right is both necessary and, it seems, impossible.
IMHO the Tories need to regroup round One Nation ideas, accept they are out for 10 years and wait for events to catch up.
They should - but the party will have to change a lot from what it is now. The best you can hope for is (probably) Badenoch beating Braverman ?
Has anyone analysed the makeup of the surviving parliamentary party ?
Re: my previous comments on the Greens. I'm willing to venture one guess as to what'll happen at the next election, and that's for the Greens to hold the four seats they now have and make some additional gains. Look out for places where they are building strength in local government over the next few years, and the MPs will follow. Look also at the precedent of what just happened with their defence - a lot of people thought Brighton Pavilion was back in play when Caroline Lucas decided to retire, coupled with controversies that caused the Greens to be severely punished in local elections, but Sian Berry still won with a 14k majority (now safer than the safest Tory seat in the country, BTW.) I think people are going to like having Green MPs, and their vote will hold up.
Do we know if Sian Berry is going to take her seat this time?
Turned out there wasn't really any difference between genders and how they voted. Also Labour didn't do as well with 18-24 as previously, which I thought was quite surprising. Seems like good chunk of young people keen to vote Green instead of Labour. Also, 22% voted Tory or Reform, which perhaps backs up what Leon was banging on about at least a tiny bit.
Tories did really really badly with 25-44. I bet rents / mortgages / student loans. That could be a huge problem for them going forward if they want to try and recover.
Not much sign of the Hot Young Fascist phenomenon there.
Sorry for those who enjoy that prospect.
Do we have data on how efficiently the Farage Tik Tok phenomenon actually converted into youth votes?
I see the Telegraph and Labour have got the vapours about the mainland version of the Democratic Unionist Party that took several of their seats on Friday and came close to getting others.
It's disappointing.
I'd love to see Sinn Fein eviscerated in NI.
Perhaps in part because of Brexit, Sinn Fein have largely consolidated the nationalist vote (SDLP dropping back further in this election), while the unionist vote is split between the TUV, DUP and UUP (and, in places, Alliance).
Just logged into SkyBet and Ladbrokes and Betfair and found unexpected extra large balances in the hundreds of pounds to withdraw. Presumably from late settling bets I'd half-forgotten.
There must be a long German word for this.
Depending on the exact amount you made it could be
Looking at the Labour target list is also very revealing - 72 more seats available to them on swings of 5% or less, the vast bulk of which are held by the Conservatives.
All of the LD seats bar two are outside of Labour's top 120 targets. We all know how damaging Reform defections were to the Conservatives, but if anything demonstrates the full extent of the anti-Tory tactical switching between Lab and LD that occurred as well, that is surely it.
Indeed but given Labour are over 400 seats now it is hard to see them gaining many more seats. Indeed in the general election after their 1997 landslide in 2001 Labour only gained 2 seats, Dorset South from the Tories and Ynys Mon from Plaid although they held almost all the seats they had won in 1997
Well we don't know, do we? Politics is becoming a more complicated, multi-cornered fight, and it only takes a small swing from either of the two right-wing parties to Labour for more Conservative defences to start to fall over. There are 24 Conservative seats available to Labour on a direct Con-Lab swing of under 2%, and more Con defections to Reform, although only half as useful to Labour, would make the situation even worse for the Tories.
Of course, if Labour does badly and loses a lot of support then that could go in the other direction to the Conservatives - but it could just as easily go to other parties, which would halve its net benefit to Con.
The more viable parties there are competing under FPTP, the more complex and unpredictable the electoral outcomes get. More random candidates will win individual seats on small fractions of the vote, even if they are utterly repellent to two-thirds or more of the voters in the constituency, and more extreme and perverse national outcomes will also occur. Indeed, an extreme and perverse outcome is essentially what we've just had with this election: Labour, as the single strongest party against a split opposition, has won two thirds of the seats with a third of the popular vote. If, in future, we have one truly dominant party against a collection of smaller parties, as happened in Scotland in 2015, then we'll end up with a gigantic governing bloc and very little opposition - try Baxtering this GE result, but taking enough extra share from the second largest party to top Labour's vote up to 40%, and see what happens. Indeed, look at what's already happened to Reform and the Greens - 21% of the popular vote between them and a grand total of 9 seats to show for it.
Crap voting system plus multi-party dynamics = inequitable and extreme results. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, it's going to throw up a truly indefensible and damaging outcome. Not that the party which ends up controlling 80% of the Commons, and has no effective Parliamentary counter left, will do anything about it.
More Labour gains from the Tories is the least likely outcome next time, more LD or Reform gains from the Tories maybe but not Labour gains. Reform also has a lot of Labour seats in its target list as does the Greens
If I had to predict right now, I’d imagine a few dozen or so Tory recoveries (a lot from Lib Dems but also a fair few Labour ones too), maybe another six or seven Reform wins - probably from Labour - and maybe another couple of Green seats.
Do we have a comparison on that from 2001?
Checking, LDs went from 46 to 52 seats, one term into a Labour Government that had a landslide majority, with the Toires trying to recover.
In a weird way, no party has reason to be super delighted with their results, with the possible exception of the Greens.
The Tories lost half their vote. Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign. The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens. Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
To think that the LibDems will not be 'super delighted' with boosting their seat numbers eightfold, to the highest in a century or so, is seriously misreading the results.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that their third party status is under threat from a party 67 seats behind them. The only way that RefUK have taken over from the LibDems is as the party of the wasted vote - a title I am sure the LibDems will be happy to relinquish.
Labour should also be super delighted with their result. They have a clear mandate to rule for the next five years. Job done. No election gives you any more than that. We're missing the wood for the trees somewhat.
Terrible for the Conservatives and SNP. Excellent for the Lib Dems, good for Reform, Greens and Gaza. Labour wins comfortably.
Turned out there wasn't really any difference between genders and how they voted. Also Labour didn't do as well with 18-24 as previously, which I thought was quite surprising. Seems like good chunk of young people keen to vote Green instead of Labour. Also, 22% voted Tory or Reform, which perhaps backs up what Leon was banging on about at least a tiny bit.
Tories did really really badly with 25-44. I bet rents / mortgages / student loans. That could be a huge problem for them going forward if they want to try and recover.
Not much sign of the Hot Young Fascist phenomenon there.
Sorry for those who enjoy that prospect.
Tbf ‘the Greens are essentially fascists’ is a recurring meme on here, so..
Edward Leigh. A brontosaurus among Tory MPs. His survival, along with the likes of Christopher Chope, is a potential drag anchor on the prospects of the Tories learning the lessons.
Edward Leigh. A brontosaurus among Tory MPs. His survival, along with the likes of Christopher Chope, is a potential drag anchor on the prospects of the Tories learning the lessons.
Learning 'the lessons' of what happens when they have a managerialist big state Goverment with an open door immigration policy, and get their worst ever election result - those lessons?
Are there any markets for the French second round?
(All my french friends are in despair btw)
Are you still expecting a Jan 6th incident in Britain?
I certainly haven't ruled that out
It’s a bit late. The new government is already in place. This is not America.
So what I mean by this is serious right wing protest directed at core institutions.... not disrupting swearing in which functions differently in the uk... behind closed doors at Buckingham palace. But let's see...
Comments
Bastards.
They're a menace.
Am going tomorrow (well today now) for no reason other than it being the only "closed city" (couple of hamlets) in the UK afaik. Tips would be welcome.
If you have a chance, check out Bradwell-on-Sea on the other side of the River Crouch. There's the Chapel of Saint Peter on the Wall, this very old, incredibly atmospheric church (sort of the Essex version of Lindisfarne) and this really awesome spooky vibe walking along the coast with the abandoned airfield and the dead nuclear power station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellie_Reeves
Nice to win mind
I don't think I have been overly negative in general e.g. I said I though Timpson and Vallance were very good appointments. I can also see why Starmer is bringing back the likes of Milburn and Alexander into the fold.
Victoria Atkins
Bill Cash
Geoffrey Clinton-Brown
Robert Courts
Caroline Dineage
Richard Drax
Philip Dunne
George Freeman
Bernard Jenkin
Andrew Mitchell
Jesse Norman
Mark Pawsey
Victoria Prentiss
Tom Tugenhadt
Charles Walker
Bill Wiggin
Now that doesnt make it right, but just sayin'.
These weird bits of the South East are I think not as known as they ought to be. I'm used to the total ignorance of where I come from in the North East down south of course, but peculiar to find these places so close to London.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1809205248654762165
Turned out there wasn't really any difference between genders and how they voted. Also Labour didn't do as well with 18-24 as previously, which I thought was quite surprising. Seems like good chunk of young people keen to vote Green instead of Labour. Also, 22% voted Tory or Reform, which perhaps backs up what Leon was banging on about at least a tiny bit.
Tories did really really badly with 25-44. I bet rents / mortgages / student loans. That could be a huge problem for them going forward if they want to try and recover.
Which is why a number of leading coaches were fired/left.
Relatively small amount of winnings on %share compared to the rest but I just want everything to do with this election done.
(Apart from my back Sunak to be replaced in 2025 or later bet. I've got £45 on now at an average of 45.56 which is enough for me for that sort of medium term longshot, but I still love to recommend it so I'm going to mention yet again like a stuck record. There are so many ways Tory contest can extend to 2025. There's no timetable or anything. You'd have won in 2005. It should not be that long)
To verify, this is a glorified fruit machine, right? They know exactly what the odds are? It's not some kinds of hands off arrangement where the bookies are provided with a computer generated field and have to make the odds themselves?
The latter sounds highly unlikely to me. But because it sounds highly unlikely, maybe I'm wrong and there's a massive edge there if anyone looked at it carefully...?
https://www.theexeterdaily.co.uk/news/entertainment-reviews/let-us-clear-all-doubts-about-virtual-sports-are-they-fixed-just-and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz4ebA7ZKfI
Although the Cons lost 23% of their former voters to Reform, the biggest single bloc, they lost 24% to the other opposition parties combined. So the idea that the Tory vote simply split and moved to Reform is a misleading one. The former group were most concerned about Tory broken promises and the latter group about the Tories being out of touch.
An amazing 22% only decided on the day (obviously this includes both previous DKs and late switchers). But the difference it, and people who decided in the last few days, made to the balance of support is marginal, except for Labour. There was a tiny break in favour of the Tories, but the biggest shift was a rise in LibDem and Green support and a drift away from Labour. This will be part at least of why the polls overestimated the Labour share.
Indeed, Labour started the campaign with nearly half of those who had already made up their mind, but only picked up about a quarter of everyone else, to end up with a third of the vote overall. Worth thinking about, that.
Tactical voting was huge, comprising nearly a third of Labour votes and nearly a half of LibDem ones. In numerical terms this means that Labour won more tactical votes. For comparison just over a quarter of Tory votes claim to be tactical, as well.
The only voters who put tax as one of their top five issues were Reform voters, and only 4% of them put it top. This suggests that the relentless focus on tax by the Tories might have been an error? Across all voters, the NHS, cost of living, and immigration were the top three issues, each chosen by about 15%.
Of the voters the Tories lost, only 44% are prepared at this stage to think that they might vote Tory next time, rising to about half of Tory to Reform switchers.
The LibDems pulled over almost as many Con Remain voters as Labour, underpinning their gains in the south. Possibly, Labour’s silence on Brexit helped the LDs back into the game?
Reform voters are anti-multiculturalism, the Green movement, social liberalism and immigration, while Tory voters are indifferent to most of these with only a weak dislike of immigration. Tory voters like capitalism more than anyone else; Green and SNP voters dislike it.
F1: between being rather tired and not having time to start the F1 stuff yesterday the pre-race tosh may be a little later than usual. Was surprised that the Mercedes locked out the front row.
This backs what I was saying about the polls during midterm - back then, Labour was the default response from people unhappy about the government (from the left) - as the election approached, by and large people worked out how best to vote in their own seat. The tactical voting websites don’t appear to have been that influential, since there are tons of examples (Newton Abbot being an obvious one) there the tactical voting advice was mixed, yet people very clearly knew that LibDem was the right choice to make locally.
In my own constituency of Tewkesbury, Labour had a fairly decent representation before the GE and might well have targeted the seat with some success, but the candidate turned out to be little more than a paper nomination, and she finished a poor fourth behind Reform (whose own candidate was a last minute entry).
During the campaign it soon became apparent that the anti-Tory vote was going to the LD, and he won handily.
I think I can detect a similar pattern elsewhere, but don't know the constituencies well enough to be sure.
Then again, I quite like the Fens...
Edit: found the answer:
https://www.lightsoutblog.com/f1-races-which-featured-no-british-drivers/?utm_content=cmp-true
Only 16 apparently; including the early Indy 500s that counted for F1, and the 2005 debacle. I wouldn't count that though, as British drivers were there and did qualify, and it was only the tyre messup that stopped them starting. Aside from Indy, you need to go back to 1951!
A possible case of what you suggest is Chichester. Historically the LibDems always ran the Tories a strong but distant second. After the coalition they were punished by dropping into third place behind Labour, and in the 2017 election it looks like they gave tactical voting for Labour a try, but got nowhere near. In 2019 this switched around with the LibDem vote rising 11%, regaining second but still 21,000 votes behind. But this clarity of being the challenger was enough to give the new LibDem MP a majority of 12,000; one of the notable results of the night - a 31% swing !!
My perception is that there are also examples where the LibDems came from third to strong second. But I haven’t looked into it thoroughly.
(All my french friends are in despair btw)
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/07/uk-pre-race-2024.html
In the former Conservative safe seat where I live, both the peeling off of votes to Reform and the Lib Dems losing a third of their 2019 voters was required to get Labour over the winning line.
Interestingly, it's possible that the same thing did not happen (at least to such a great extent) with the Green vote. Green share here increased, and certainly when the early results were coming in from the North East it seemed to me that the Greens were pretty consistently out polling the Lib Dems in those Labour holds and gains. This may mean that we discover going forward that not only have the Greens won a lot of new supporters, but that their vote is sticky. 6-7% could now be the irreducible core of Green support.
It might get them into Government next time, but the only similarity between the 2010 Conservatives and the 2029 Conservatives will be the name.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c720w4pze28o
The other remarkable is how even demographically the LD vote is, varying from 14% in AB to 9% in E, and fairly even across the ages. The prejudice on here that LD voters are all shopping in Waitrose isn't correct.
This exit poll only tells us how people voted who did actually vote. It tells us nothing about the inclinations of those who didn't vote. In particular it doesn't tell us why they didn't vote, and with the overall turnout a shade under 60% turnout was almost certainly under 50% for Millenials and Gen Z, perhaps much lower. That isn't good for democracy.
That’s a very broad coalition for a small party.
The Tories lost half their vote.
Labour barely moved their overall share and went backwards significantly during the campaign.
The Lib Dems also barely moved their overall share and are their third party status is contested by Reform. They also face a threat from the Greens.
Reform won far fewer seats than the MRPs suggested, and their vote was distributed incredibly inefficiently.
This is fine in opposition, less so if wanting to form a government, but nobody is expecting a Green government any time soon.
LD succeeded by targeting Labour and Green* voters to tactically vote LD, but Reform do not have that option.
*LDs do well with the light Greens, hence the campaign to clean up rivers and coasts.
As RefUk will find out, and as the Lib Dems know from bitter experience, lots of votes but no seats doesn´t cut it.
The LDs are now firmly identified in our minds as centre left, not centre right. History has conspired to make them always the alternative to Tory not Labour hopes. That won't change soon.
SFAICS about half of Tory defectors went Reformwards, the other half went Lab/LD/Stay home.
The choice is horrible electorally, but if Tories link with Reform many of the defectors are not coming back (I am one).
The centre left Lab/LD do not overlap electorally. A united centre right is both necessary and, it seems, impossible.
IMHO the Tories need to regroup round One Nation ideas, accept they are out for 10 years and wait for events to catch up.
Starmer is (famous last words) a great deal better than they realise.
Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that their third party status is under threat from a party 67 seats behind them. The only way that RefUK have taken over from the LibDems is as the party of the wasted vote - a title I am sure the LibDems will be happy to relinquish.
The Reform vote is limited necessarily: centrists won't vote for them. They voted for these parties for MEPs who didn't matter, and agreed over Brexit. But the great majority of Brexit voters did not vote Reform, and are not going to.
The rural Greens are interesting, but also an example of careful seat targeting and Tactical voting.
Sorry for those who enjoy that prospect.
Labour’s share of the vote is the lowest won by a post-war single party government.
I don’t think Farage will care about the number of MPs. It helps rather than hinders his mode of grievance politics, and he’s not really interested in Parliament (unless he’s in charge). He will be delighted to have taken so many votes from the Conservatives.
I can seem them doing much better in the next election in terms of vote share, even if their seats stay static or even fall. They are a big threat to Labour if they start to split their vote, and a massive obstacle to the Conservatives winning the shires back.
A further note: the Lib Dems are not under threat from the Greens, excepting the fact that strong Green organisation in some rural areas where the Lib Dems have been historically weak will hinder LD attempts at expansion. And Green local strength is still rather limited.
The Greens seem to be good at targeting uber-progressive urban cores, and the crumbling rural redoubts of clapped out old Tories where folk are more bothered about deficient bus services and ugly pylons than Gaza and whether or not trans women are women. Are there actually any contests anywhere in the country where the Greens are trying to seize territory off the Yellows?
The Greens already have a decent base of councillors in Scottish cities, plus the proportional nature of Holyrood gives them a bigger voice.
If the Yellow Wall holds, the Tories will be out of power for a very, very long time. I doubt after their previous disaster that the Lib Dems will enter a Coalition with anyone again, save perhaps in exchange for the guarantee of PR. And certainly not with the Conservatives.
I'd love to see Sinn Fein eviscerated in NI.
The best you can hope for is (probably) Badenoch beating Braverman ?
Has anyone analysed the makeup of the surviving parliamentary party ?
NEW THREAD
NEW THREAD
Checking, LDs went from 46 to 52 seats, one term into a Labour Government that had a landslide majority, with the Toires trying to recover.
What happened to individual seats?
Terrible for the Conservatives and SNP. Excellent for the Lib Dems, good for Reform, Greens and Gaza. Labour wins comfortably.