June 16, 20178 yr 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
June 16, 20178 yr 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
June 16, 20178 yr 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.
June 16, 20178 yr 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.
June 16, 20178 yr 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 June 16, 20178 yr by Doctor Blind
June 17, 20178 yr 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
June 17, 20178 yr 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.
June 17, 20178 yr Somehow I think that Tories will want to push the boundary changes through ASAP! :P Them and what Army?
June 17, 20178 yr 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. ... Or you could just wait for the Conservative voters to die out.
June 17, 20178 yr 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.
June 17, 20178 yr 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.
June 17, 20178 yr 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 June 17, 20178 yr by Doctor Blind
June 17, 20178 yr 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.
June 17, 20178 yr 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.
June 18, 20178 yr 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. :)
June 18, 20178 yr 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.
June 18, 20178 yr 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