Jump to content

Featured Replies

  • Replies 174
  • Views 11.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No they were just registered in two places.

 

It's perfectly legal. If there was actual evidence to suggest this practice had occurred then it would be easy to verify. Simple matter of fact is that voting fraud is very rare. You maybe hear of one or two per election where someone has gone to vote to find out someone has already voted in their name. That's a rate of like 1 in 14 million. Statistically so small it's completely irrelevant

  • Author
No they were just registered in two places.

 

It's perfectly legal. If there was actual evidence to suggest this practice had occurred then it would be easy to verify. Simple matter of fact is that voting fraud is very rare. You maybe hear of one or two per election where someone has gone to vote to find out someone has already voted in their name. That's a rate of like 1 in 14 million. Statistically so small it's completely irrelevant

 

That form of vote fraud is extremely rare, but fraud involving postal voting does happen...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648

  • Author
If anyone is interested, you can find the full results for all constituencies here :

 

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7979

 

I'll crunch them into a more readable format later.

 

I've now done so.

 

There are now 49 seats with a majority of less than 1000

 

19 held by Labour

17 Con

9 SNP

2 PC

2 LD

 

Labour would need about a 5-6% swing to get an overall majority, possibly more if the boundary changes go through this time.

I've now done so.

 

There are now 49 seats with a majority of less than 1000

 

19 held by Labour

17 Con

9 SNP

2 PC

2 LD

 

Labour would need about a 5-6% swing to get an overall majority, possibly more if the boundary changes go through this time.

One study I've seen suggests that the results would have been very similar under the proposed new boundaries. Of course, if they go for yet another review that could change.

If anyone is interested, you can find the full results for all constituencies here :

 

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...ummary/CBP-7979

 

I'll crunch them into a more readable format later.

 

Thanks for that! Some interesting stats:

 

Lowest number of votes

Smith, Bobby (Ind, Maidenhead) 3 - so other than himself, just 2 people voted for him. Popular fella then! Edit- just realised he's that 'Give Me Back Elmo' guy...

 

Highest number of votes

Howarth, George (Lab, Knowsley) 47351

 

The whole Top 10 are Labour and Diane Abbott is in 11th place. *.*

 

Highest number of votes for a standing UKIP candidate

Aker, Tim (UKIP, Thurrock) 10112 - Labour were VERY close to taking this seat, just 345 in it in the end. Also LOL at Paul Nuttall!

Edited by Doctor Blind

  • Author
One study I've seen suggests that the results would have been very similar under the proposed new boundaries. Of course, if they go for yet another review that could change.

 

Somehow I think that Tories will want to push the boundary changes through ASAP! :P

 

  • Author

One thing the figures seem to show is that, outside of London (The London effect probably being due to the large number of Remainers), there was relatively little direct switching from Con to Lab. Instead Labour seem to have mopped up a higher than expected proportion of UKIP votes, plus tactical votes from other smaller parties.

 

In order to actually win a general election though, they will have to do what Blair did in 1997 - get large numbers of Tory voters to switch.

 

IMO this is very unlikely - Blair was a moderate centre-left leader, who could appeal to Tories on the left of their party, whereas Corbyn is hard-left, with very little appeal to any traditional Tory voters, instead hoping to rely on first-time voters who've yet to experience the full range of political effects.

One thing the figures seem to show is that, outside of London (The London effect probably being due to the large number of Remainers), there was relatively little direct switching from Con to Lab. Instead Labour seem to have mopped up a higher than expected proportion of UKIP votes, plus tactical votes from other smaller parties.

 

In order to actually win a general election though, they will have to do what Blair did in 1997 - get large numbers of Tory voters to switch.

 

IMO this is very unlikely - Blair was a moderate centre-left leader, who could appeal to Tories on the left of their party, whereas Corbyn is hard-left, with very little appeal to any traditional Tory voters, instead hoping to rely on first-time voters who've yet to experience the full range of political effects.

 

Age-01.png

 

... Or you could just wait for the Conservative voters to die out.

One thing the figures seem to show is that, outside of London (The London effect probably being due to the large number of Remainers), there was relatively little direct switching from Con to Lab. Instead Labour seem to have mopped up a higher than expected proportion of UKIP votes, plus tactical votes from other smaller parties.

What figures? The results simply show the net movement between parties. I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that there were relatively few people switching from Tory to Labour.

  • Author
... Or you could just wait for the Conservative voters to die out.

 

But that doesn't work, as people tend to get more conservative as they get older, replacing the ones that die off.

 

 

What figures? The results simply show the net movement between parties. I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that there were relatively few people switching from Tory to Labour.

 

We'll know more when we see figures for churn.

 

But that doesn't work, as people tend to get more conservative as they get older, replacing the ones that die off.

 

Yes that definitely used to be the case so my point was slightly tongue-in-cheek, however it is notable that in this election there was a significant swing to Labour in even the 30-39 and 40-49 groups (relative to 2015) which suggest that this trend is dying out. Also quite stark is the growing disparity between how the youngest and oldest vote, it is becoming greater as time goes on! Not quite sure what the cause of that may be to be honest..

Edited by Doctor Blind

The Tories used to win the 18-30 vote in the 1980s, and presumably a lot of those people in their 40s to 60s are still voting for them now. Every election since (I'm pretty sure, anyway) has seen Labour win the youth vote. That means that you've now got a whole generation of people entering their middle ages who not only are becoming more likely to vote, but are also used to voting Labour. Unless the Tories start doing well among under 40s again sharpish, the generational churn really doesn't help them.
We'll know more when we see figures for churn.

Which was precisely my point. However, I'm not the one who was jumping to conclusions about movement of votes.

  • Author
Yes that definitely used to be the case so my point was slightly tongue-in-cheek, however it is notable that in this election there was a significant swing to Labour in even the 30-39 and 40-49 groups (relative to 2015) which suggest that this trend is dying out. Also quite stark is the growing disparity between how the youngest and oldest vote, it is becoming greater as time goes on! Not quite sure what the cause of that may be to be honest..

 

 

I suspect you can already guess my ideas about that. :)

They will be no Queen's speech next year, Parliament will sit for two years to allow for more time to push Brexit legislation through.
  • Author

Here's a thought to ponder - the Tories were just 50 votes short of a technical majority...

 

Seat Win Maj 2nd

Perth and Perthshire North SNP 21 Con

Kensington Lab 20 Con

Dudley North Lab 22 Con

Newcastle-under-Lyme Lab 30 Con

 

So, to change the result would have taken 11 +11 + 12+ 16 =50 votes

 

That would have given them 322 seats, and with only 643 HoC seats being taken up (Sinn Fein (7) not taking up theirs), that would have given the Tories an effective majority of one...

 

[NB, a further 25 votes switched would have given then 'Crewe & Nantwich' too.]

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.