please empty your brain below
For completeness, what about those seats where Labour lost to Tories by only very small numbers of votes?

| 09.06.17 - 11:35 a.m. | #

This is very artificial, in terms of voters two of the mistakes the Tories made was to assume the UKIP vote would automatically switch to the Tories, they didn't, some areas it was 60/40 or 50/50, so Labour held on to several pro-Brixit areas, just with a reduced majority (think Gillian Duffy - a Labour voter who wanted to know where they were all flocking from?).

The second was to assume that the areas that voted against Brexit would just roll over, they didn't did they - especially in London.

Still anon | 09.06.17 - 12:17 p.m. | #

The speaker and deputy speakers don't vote, so the winning post is actually 320.

John | 09.06.17 - 12:18 p.m. | #

@no name 11:35 a.m.

It's not just "for completeness" - I think DG is incorrect by not including those.

Let's take Richmond Park. If 23 voters had picked Olney (LD) instead of Goldsmith (Con) then Tories would have lost 1 seat. This is fewer than the e.g. 125 switchers needed in Keighley.

John | 09.06.17 - 12:24 p.m. | #

John: surely DG is answering the question of how many extra votes the Conservatives would have needed to secure an absolute majority. Which, as he says, involves a little over 400 people in the right seats switching to vote Conservative.

How would taking Richmond Park away from the Conservatives, and giving it to the Lib Dems instead, assist with that analysis? Let alone make DG incorrect ... ?

Andrew | 09.06.17 - 2:20 p.m. | #

I know at least one person in Richmond Park & North Kingston whose proxy voting papers were lost by Royal Mail. Had he not been able to take the day off work to come to London and vote in person, that would have been one less vote for Ms Olney (I know which way he wanted to vote as I was to have been his proxy). I wonder how many voters were disenfranchised due to Royal Mail incompetence?

timbo | 09.06.17 - 3:24 p.m. | #

about time voting was done online then ...instead of this old-hat paper-business

Grumpy Anon | 09.06.17 - 5:06 p.m. | #

@Grumpy Anon
Electronic / mechanical voting is much more capable of being manipulated than old hat paper.

See real life Bush / Gore and fictions "Scandal" & "The Good Wife".

There is very little systematic electoral fraud in this country, though campaign expenditure reporting and policing could do with some careful attention.

RosemaryT | 09.06.17 - 8:40 p.m. | #

Post now updated with Kensington recount.
(Kensington! Recount! Twenty votes!)

diamond geezer | Homepage | 09.06.17 - 9:41 p.m. | #

The Independent has a piece looking the other way - that Labour were only 2227 votes/7 seats short of a 'Progressive Alliance' having enough seats to deny Mrs May a majority (although they have only considered Con/Lab marginals). See
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-election-results-votes-away-prime-minister-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html

Jeremy | 09.06.17 - 9:56 p.m. | #

How quickly do we go from being 'strong & stable' to 'certain'!

| 09.06.17 - 10:07 p.m. | #

Just been catching up with the recounts news from the BBC. Kensington turned red! What happened there then?!

Great Aunt Annie | 09.06.17 - 10:57 p.m. | #

DG, saw this is The Sun online this morning and thought of you.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3787982/just-401-votes-could-have-given-theresa-may-a-majority-in-the-house-of-commons-due-to-so-many-close-election-results/

Dave Edwards | 14.06.17 - 8:24 a.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy