please empty your brain below
The pollsters and the pundits spent all of yesterday in their search for reasons for Labour's defeat, but consistently avoided the obvious. Labour were not offering a referendum on the EU.

People did not need to vote UKIP to register their wish for a referendum, since it was on offer by the Conservatives. This was the 'Referendum by proxy' election.

RayL | 09.05.15 - 8:03 a.m. | #

The pollsters and the pundits spent all of yesterday in their search for reasons for [insert election outcome here], but consistently avoided the obvious. [Insert name of party here] were not offering [insert pet issue here].

diamond geezer | Homepage | 09.05.15 - 8:12 a.m. | #

The pollsters and the pundits spent all of yesterday in their search for reasons for Labour's defeat, but consistently avoided the obvious. Labour were not trusted with the economy.

(rightly or wrongly I think that's much closer to the truth)

Nick | 09.05.15 - 8:44 a.m. | #

so the "did not vote" party won the election

Caroline | 09.05.15 - 8:47 a.m. | #

@ 6) ta, confirms what I thought.

B | 09.05.15 - 9:09 a.m. | #

... I see my previous question re turnout was answered here. Good to see numbers up, slightly.

Honestly, I think that the surprise win for the Tories was down to fears about a hung parliament and what it might mean (tempered, perhaps, with some fear of Scotland somehow holding parliament by the balls).

Antipodean | 09.05.15 - 9:19 a.m. | #

"I think that the surprise win for the Tories was down to fears"

I'd agree with that much. Whether they were valid fears, we shall now never know.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 09.05.15 - 9:21 a.m. | #

Interesting numbers - how important was Murdoch and the Mirror ?

From my perspective in Murdochs place-of-birth, what was the influence of what seems similar extraordinary over-the-top bias by some of your print media.

In Australia Murdoch owns about 50% of 'quality', and 100% of 'redtop', and I only read the front-pages in newsagent.

But I am beginning to suspect they do have a significant influence.

You might be depressed by Cameron and his chums, but you should see what Murdoch gave us here.

---
But on the results - if I was UKIP or the Greens I would feel it wasn't fair

But I don't think that replacing first-past-the-post with PR is going to be a solution

At the extreme, if you had perfectly non-gerrymandered constituencies (I think the US calls it 'districting', not sure what you call it in UK), each with the same political breakdown as the whole population, the party who gets the most votes (e.g. CON with 37%) will win 100% of the seats. Same result if PR or fptp.

It seems to me that a more representative result comes from multi-member constituencies, or hybrid systems as in NZ and Germany.

Or a directly elected upper house with regional constituencies.

Kate Demonstration | 09.05.15 - 9:31 a.m. | #

DG: "I'd agree with that much. Whether they were valid fears, we shall now never know."

In the short term there would have been some volatility on the stock market and the pound would have fallen, methinks.

In the long term, it is likely that the UK will do quite well as a nation as a result of a conservative win, given global capitalism and all that. But there will be winners and losers and as other posters have said the losers will be publicly owned assets and the welfare state. I second what Kate says above re hybrid systems, such as mixed member constituencies. And we won't talk about the upper house :).

Antipodean | 09.05.15 - 9:40 a.m. | #

Very simple as always...it was the economy, stupid. Plus, Labour seem to have this inbuilt death wish by electing leaders that are not just odd but incredibly out of touch. Foot, who looked like he had stepped out from Back to the Future, my father never forgave him for turning up at the Cenotaph in a duffle coat. Kinnock, and his absurd victory speech before the election. Gordon Brown...where do you start. The so called safe Chancellor who sold off our gold at a rock bottom price and advertising the sale beforehand...incredible. He then proceeded to wreck both final salary and personal pensions by his taxing of the dividend credit. His bullying of staff at Number 10 and that unbelievable letter written in crayon, words fail me. I won't go on about him or I will go mad. Then there was Ed. Rhetoric and soundbites but with no substance. He talked about a milk and honey socialist future that was so out of touch in modern day UK. His ridiculous slab of concrete with meaningless and ridiculous promises...and Labour scratch their heads and wonder why the Tories won so decisively. I know these pages are not normally for political comment but on this occasion I thought why not? By the way, I am not a Tory...honest!

Bernie | 09.05.15 - 12:56 p.m. | #

@Antipodean

In the long term, it is likely that the UK will do quite well as a nation as a result of a conservative win.

I think that's right - the average person may do better under the Conservatives' policies, but the worst off will do worse. That's the question: should we try to maximise the benefit for the maximum number of people (the so-called "hard working families" politicians of all parties keep going on about), even if that means a few (those who through disability, misfortune, family responsibilities, old age, have to rely on others) are very much worse off as a result?

timbo | 09.05.15 - 1:11 p.m. | #

@ Timbo Frankly I am over 'hard working families', both because I am single and childfree and also because I see the term as an attempt to erase class differences. Not all 'working families' are the same. I quite agree that the worst off will do worse, and am depressed at the Tory victory (even though I don't live in the UK). I think my clumsily made point was more about globalism and the global economy and how these tend to scaffold the right at the expense of a more basic humanity.

Antipodean | 09.05.15 - 1:50 p.m. | #

Well said, Bernie, and hey, you did it all without even mentioning the other one. Yeah... *that* one!

RogerW | 09.05.15 - 2:22 p.m. | #

@Bernie
that infamous duffle coat/donkey jacket.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7361078/Michael-Foot-and-the-donkey-jacket-that-wasnt.html

So the worst criticism you have of the man is that his poor health (in particular asthma, lung damage and lameness from a road accident twenty years before, and half blinded by shingles) required him to dress warmly to attend an outdoor ceremony on a cold November morning.

timbo | 09.05.15 - 3:01 p.m. | #

RogerW... I did not mention the other "one"for the main reason that sadly, he was successful and did not appear odd. If only we had known...Blair should been sent to the Hague along with that other dreadful lying "public servant" Campbell. Timbo, wearing that duffle coat was not my worst criticism of Michael Foot. This was...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_longest_suicide_note_in_history

Bernie | 09.05.15 - 4:20 p.m. | #

Did a genie offer Milliband three wishes?
- coalition loses 25 seats
- several cabinet ministers out
- coalition has only two seats left in Scotland.

When was the last time so many cabinet ministers lost their seats in a General Election?

timbo | 09.05.15 - 5:12 p.m. | #

The chart that fascinates me is the one showing turnout decade-by-decade. For years I had been under the impression that turnout had been falling for a very long time. But the chart shows that turnout remained remarkably stable from the 1920s to the 1990s before dropping off a cliff. In what way were the 2000s so radically different from earlier decades as to cause such a sudden drop? It can’t just be disillusionment with politicians. If that had been the cause the decrease in turnout would surely have started much earlier.

M | 09.05.15 - 5:56 p.m. | #

@M: That's one of the few occasions that I think an exact general-election-by-general-election turnout figure would help us understand the matter better:

1. General elections only hold about twice a decade, so a by-decade figure could be as problematic as two (drastically?) different turnout rates averaged;

2. Others elections (say, by-elections) usually have a much smaller sample size and the turnout rate would be heavily affected by individual constituencies.

3. The drop is exactly where Blair and Gordon were in power, so they might have done something that amplified any existing disillusion... or not?
(NOTE: If I have been politically incorrect by commenting something probably bad about Labour among a probably Labour audiences, please feel free to point out. I meant no offense)

Patrickov | 09.05.15 - 6:16 p.m. | #

re Patrickov's last observation:
There is a case for a hypothesis that the drop in turnout was because the 2000s were a time when the major parties of both the right and the left had both recently been found wanting.

Bob Lindsay-Smith | 09.05.15 - 8:09 p.m. | #

There's something not right with either the numbers and/ or graphics in figure 4a.

Plastic Man | 09.05.15 - 9:28 p.m. | #

According to the election supplement in Thursday’s Times, the turnout was 78% in 1992, fell to 71% in 1997 (the lowest since the war – The Times doesn’t give any pre-war figures) but then plummeted to 59% in 2001. Since then the turnout has crept up in each election, reaching 66% this time.

M | 09.05.15 - 11:10 p.m. | #

FACT: Turnover at each general election since 1945.

FACT: Michael Foot's "duffle coat" was bought at Harrods. And here it is.

FACT: The 1983 Labour manifesto was only 39 pages long. And here it is. (It may have been a suicide note, but it wasn't actually very long. It is often confused with a 700-page policy document issued earlier in 1983, with the same name.)

And here is a copy of its contents.

Andrew | 09.05.15 - 11:31 p.m. | #

Does anyone actually tell the truth to opinion pollsters? (on any topic)

JQ | 10.05.15 - 7:26 a.m. | #

Kate, PR means proportional representation, not preferential voting.

Jonathan D | 11.05.15 - 2:53 a.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy