Scrutable

There's a Tory MP within Rotherham district. Rotherham.

I hope he'll be arguing for more funds for his local authority.

Interesting looking at the vote share. A little swing to Tories, but basically an 8% drop in the Labour vote

It's so frustrating to see the Tory seats where the Labour plus Lib Dem votes add up to more than the Tory vote.

Martin Y wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:52 pm

JQH wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:24 pm

Martin Y wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:50 pm

I thought the rum got him in the end. Was it the Black Spot?

Where's his treasure map?

I heard Long-John-Bailey's got it.

Was interviewed by the police.

"Why are your gang stealing maps?"

"Because we arrrrrrrrrrrr"

And after all that

After 650 of 650 seats declared, according to BBC website

Share of vote:

Conservative - 43.6%
Democratic Unionist Party - 0.8%
The Brexit Party - 2.0%
Ulster Unionist Party - 0.3%
UKIP - 0.1%

Total: 46.8%

Labour - 32.1%
Scottish National Party - 3.9%
Liberal Democrat - 11.5%
Social Democratic & Labour Party 0.4%
Green Party - 3.0%
Alliance Party - 0.4%

Total: 51.3%

By my reckoning*, the first lot are pro-Brexit, and the second lot broadly anti, despite fence sitting tactics - and, if nothing else, very much against a 'hard' Brexit - and a result that is broadly the opposite of the referendum.

Not that it means much.

There really ought to be a better way of making decisions, dealing with polarising questions, and reflecting the very small margin that this issue is being decided by. But we missed the opportunity to change from a FPTP system. Sigh.

*which has no good methodology to support it.

Im starting to think that democracy doesnt work.

I don't buy the Labour leadership being anti-Brexit at all (the membership were, not that it matters now). And their supposed negotiating strategy would end up no different to where we are now.

discovolante wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:57 pm It's so frustrating to see the Tory seats where the Labour plus Lib Dem votes add up to more than the Tory vote.

Exactly what happened in the constituency I'm in. The incumbent Tory lost 3% on last year, but whilst Labour did increase its share a little, the majority of the gains were Lib dem votes...

Herainestold wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:41 pm Im starting to think that democracy doesnt work.

We'd have to try it first to see.

Greengrocer Dave West voted Conservative, despite voting remain in the referendum and expecting his business costs to rise if Britain leaves the EU.

...

I don't want to leave the EU because my lorry drivers will be in queues and much of my produce is from Spain and France, but I still voted Conservative because of everything else.

My decision was based on local issues.

Dave West is an idiot.

Gail Robinson, who runs a delicatessen stall, was also influenced by local issues and said she was proud to have ticked the Tory box for the first time.

The 46-year-old said she "didn't want Labour in anymore".

"All the funding just goes to Wigan. The MP talked a lot of gibberish.

The people of Leigh, everybody.

Ashcroft poll results https://www.conservativehome.com/platfo ... -poll.html

discovolante wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:57 pm It's so frustrating to see the Tory seats where the Labour plus Lib Dem votes add up to more than the Tory vote.

Five hundred odd votes in the High Peak.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:55 am

Greengrocer Dave West voted Conservative, despite voting remain in the referendum and expecting his business costs to rise if Britain leaves the EU.

...

I don't want to leave the EU because my lorry drivers will be in queues and much of my produce is from Spain and France, but I still voted Conservative because of everything else.

My decision was based on local issues.

Dave West is an idiot.

Gail Robinson, who runs a delicatessen stall, was also influenced by local issues and said she was proud to have ticked the Tory box for the first time.

The 46-year-old said she "didn't want Labour in anymore".

"All the funding just goes to Wigan. The MP talked a lot of gibberish.

The people of Leigh, everybody.

There was the one from Wrexham which went something along the lines of "after 10 years of austerity everything in Wrexham is f.cked so I voted Tory for the first time because we need a change!".

Awwwwwww, that nice Tim Martin - y'know, the one who was on PM the other evening, telling Wayne Hemingway that inequality doesn't actually exist and that people aren't really living in poverty, that one - is suddenly a whole lot richer.

Isn't that a nice piece of news? Warms yer cockles, makes yer proud to be English?

Stephanie wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:51 am Ashcroft poll results https://www.conservativehome.com/platfo ... -poll.html

Interesting reading - thank you Stephanie.

So Labour beat the Conservatives in the votes of people in the age range 18-44, but were very unpopular for those older than 65. And social class C2 voted pro Conservative significantly more than the average.

These groups are voting in what they see as either their best interests, or what they believe are the best interests of the country as a whole (some people try to be altruistic). It might be useful to find out what those beliefs are, and whether they are reasonable or able to be modified in reasonable (to both parties) discourse.

discovolante wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:57 pm It's so frustrating to see the Tory seats where the Labour plus Lib Dem votes add up to more than the Tory vote.

True but OTOH it's probably a mistake to imagine that if one of those candidates had stood aside, all of their votes would have gone to the other.

In the fullness of time we should have data from the British Election Study that will allow us to do the thought experiment of imagining what would happen if the Lib Dems were not standing. In past elections it would have made much less difference than you would think if you imagined the Lib Dems as splitting an "anti-tory" vote, but I suppose it might not have worked out that way this time round.

snoozeofreason wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:07 am

discovolante wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:57 pm It's so frustrating to see the Tory seats where the Labour plus Lib Dem votes add up to more than the Tory vote.

True but OTOH it's probably a mistake to imagine that if one of those candidates had stood aside, all of their votes would have gone to the other.

In the fullness of time we should have data from the British Election Study that will allow us to do the thought experiment of imagining what would happen if the Lib Dems were not standing. In past elections it would have made much less difference than you would think if you imagined the Lib Dems as splitting an "anti-tory" vote, but I suppose it might not have worked out that way this time round.

I did think that, and I suppose it is a bit pointless to speculate too much for now, but on the other hand if the lib dems had done that it would have potentially cast the election in a different light to those who bother to pay attention to these things.

Anyway it wouldnt have affected the tory majority, but it could have been a bit smaller.

Here's the number of votes it took for each party to get an MP elected: Edit: that's slightly out of date, I think there was 1 seat left to declare at the time.

Pucksoppet wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:55 am These groups are voting in what they see as either their best interests, or what they believe are the best interests of the country as a whole (some people try to be altruistic). It might be useful to find out what those beliefs are, and whether they are reasonable or able to be modified in reasonable (to both parties) discourse.

Or millions of voters are f.cking morons and aren't worth asking, because their voting was even more irrational than their votes on moron-shows like I'm a Celebrity and Strictly.

I am particularly annoyed by the Lib Dems in my constituency. Right through the campaign they were sending us leaflets suggesting that they were the only party that could beat the Tories, and that Labour would come nowhere. All the evidence suggested that it was the other way round, and the eventual result bore that out. The Labour candidate ran a good campaign (in the sense that his vote ended up being pretty identical to the one Labour got in the 2017 GE). It would be an exaggeration to say that he was within reach of unseating the Tory incumbent, but he did come a close second. The Lib Dems ended up in a very distant third place.

snoozeofreason wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:35 am I am particularly annoyed by the Lib Dems in my constituency. Right through the campaign they were sending us leaflets suggesting that they were the only party that could beat the Tories, and that Labour would come nowhere. All the evidence suggested that it was the other way round, and the eventual result bore that out. The Labour candidate ran a good campaign (in the sense that his vote ended up being pretty identical to the one Labour got in the 2017 GE). It would be an exaggeration to say that he was within reach of unseating the Tory incumbent, but he did come a close second. The Lib Dems ended up in a very distant third place.

The sad thing is that the Lib Dems probably sincerely believed their own b.llsh.t and found ways to twist the data to fit, to reduce the cognitive dissonance.

Actually no the sad thing is that people have clearly voted for sh.t things to get even shitter.

Most of these LibDems would have voted Conservative or not voted if there was no LibDem choice. There was such opposition to Labour that some LibDem-leaners voted Conservatives out of fear of a Corbyn victory.

Labour hurt LibDem votes by much more than LibDem hurt Labour. At some point I'll prove it with a list of southern constituencies where LibDem came second and the Tory won with <50%.

First one I tried, Sutton & Cheam.

Conservative 25,235 = 50.0%
LD + Labour + Green 25,252 = 50.0%

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/con ... /E14000984

The Remain Alliance failed because Corbyn & Co refused to play any part, while LD and Green wanted to work with Labour and tried a partial alliance between themselves (and PC).

Winchester: Conservative won by 985 votes, Labour "wasted" 2,723.

Esher and Walton, won by Dominic Raab with majority of 2,743.

Labour vote 2,838.

Do me a favour, would you? Next time you hear someone talking shite about Corbyn losing because of LibDems, tell them to f.ck off.

shpalman wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:39 am

snoozeofreason wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:35 am I am particularly annoyed by the Lib Dems in my constituency. Right through the campaign they were sending us leaflets suggesting that they were the only party that could beat the Tories, and that Labour would come nowhere. All the evidence suggested that it was the other way round, and the eventual result bore that out. The Labour candidate ran a good campaign (in the sense that his vote ended up being pretty identical to the one Labour got in the 2017 GE). It would be an exaggeration to say that he was within reach of unseating the Tory incumbent, but he did come a close second. The Lib Dems ended up in a very distant third place.

The sad thing is that the Lib Dems probably sincerely believed their own b.llsh.t and found ways to twist the data to fit, to reduce the cognitive dissonance.

Actually no the sad thing is that people have clearly voted for sh.t things to get even shitter.

No, it is mendacious lying, based on the one off result of the Euro election. They used them all over the country.

But why do people seem to assume it's wrong somehow for them to stand against Labour. They are a national party campaigning on their own manifesto. Anyway Corbyn et al made very sure any kind of progressive alliance was a non starter.