Election Analysis 2015

+
UK General Election 2015

Data Analysis
David Freeborn
David.freeborn@cern.ch
Contents
n
Slide 3 Introduction
Slide 4 Is there a Labour Low Turnout Effect?
Slide 13 How strong was the Green Spoiler Effect?
Slide 14 Liberal Democrats: where did they collapse or survive?
Slide 22 Is Scotland Exceptional?
Slide 26 Is UKIPland Exceptional?
Slide 30 Which seats saw the largest Labour increases?
Slide 32 Did Labour lose Middle England?
Slide 33 Key Conclusions
Bonus Slides
n
n
Slide 34 Interesting seats

Slide 40 Multipartiness and Onepartiness
Introduction
n
For the most part, Im using the data gathered here:

http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/2015-general-election-results-data-releasedby-the-bes/#.VV4rZVnBzGd
This contains data from the Census of 2011 as well as the election results for 2015 and 2010
The election for Thirsk and Malton in 2010 was postponed for a few weeks due to the death of the
Conservative PPC. Where I need 2010 data for this seat, I use the data from the wikipedia page,
for the postponed election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirsk_and_Malton_%28UK_Parliament_constituency
%29#Elections_in_the_2010s
I am excluding the results for Buckingham, the Speaker, John Bercows seat, as this was not
contested by the main parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats)
I have not checked this spreadsheet for errors: I cannot guarantee that it does not contain any!
Wherever else I need data, Ive taken it from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
This is not a detailed big data analysis: this is a quick look at the results. I think theres a lot of
scope for a more rigorous analysis, and there are a lot more questions that I would like to have a
look at answering!
I am happy for anybody to use this analysis freely, but it would be kind if you cite my contribution,
and let me know how you have used the data.
Introduction
What correlates with Labour vote?

Deprivation *
Unemployment
10.00"
9.00"
70.00"
R2 = 0.56
65.00"
8.00"
60.00"
55.00"
6.00"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Unemployment*(%)*
7.00"
5.00"
4.00"
3.00"
50.00"
45.00"
40.00"
35.00"
2.00"
30.00"
1.00"
25.00"
0.00"
0"
10"
y"="0.0647x"+"2.2853"
R"="0.56375"
R2 = 0.49
20"
30"
40"
50"
Labour*vote*(%)*
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
20.00"
0"
10"
y"="$0.2947x"+"52.129"
R"="0.4922"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Labour$vote$(%)$
As expected, Labour vote correlates with unemployment, deprivation, ethnicity, population density, working-age
population and low home ownership. These factors are also highly correlated with each other.
There are plenty of other factors that also give comparable correlations with the Labour vote
* The Census uses a four dimensional measure of deprivation, which you can read about here:
http://census.ukdataservice.ac.uk/get-data/related/deprivation.aspx . Not deprived refers to the population who do not meet
any of the four deprivation criteria. The Census does not provide this data for Scotland.
Who votes for whom?
What correlates with Labour vote?

Not retired
Deprivation
70.00"
9.00"
65.00"
8.00"
60.00"
7.00"
55.00"
6.00"
50.00"
5.00"
4.00"
30.00"
25.00"
R2 = 0.49
R2 = 0.21
20.00"
Re#red&(%)&
10.00"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Unemployment*(%)*
Unemployment
45.00"
15.00"
40.00"
10.00"
3.00"
35.00"
R2 = 0.56
2.00"
30.00"
1.00"
5.00"
25.00"
0.00"
0"
10"
y"="0.0647x"+"2.2853"
R"="0.56375"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Labour*vote*(%)*
0.00"
20.00"
0"
10"
y"="$0.2947x"+"52.129"
R"="0.4922"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Labour$vote$(%)$
0"
High Denisty
Not White-British
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Labour&vote&(%)&
Low Home Ownership
100.00"
100.00"
10"
y"="$0.1046x"+"17.66"
R"="0.21023"
70.00"
R2 = 0.28
90.00"
65.00"
80.00"
80.00"
60.00"
40.00"
40.00"
20.00"
30.00"
10.00"
Home%Ownership%(%)%
50.00"
20.00"
55.00"
60.00"
60.00"
Popula'on)Density)
Ethnicity((White(Bri-sh((%)(
70.00"
20"
30"
45.00"
40.00"
35.00"
30.00"
R2 = 0.23
0.00"
0"
10"
y"="$0.5311x"+"100.17"
R"="0.22973"
50.00"
0.00"
0"
40"
50"
Labour(vote((%)(
Who votes for whom?
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
+20.00"
10"
y"="0.8321x"+"6.659"
R"="0.28601"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Labour)vote)(%))
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
25.00"
R2 = 0.34
20.00"
0"
10"
y"="$0.4056x"+"77.209"
R"="0.34387"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Labour%vote%(%)%
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
+ These correlations change little if we exclude Scotland

10.00"
70.00"
9.00"
65.00"
8.00"
30.00"
25.00"
R2 = 0.49
60.00"
7.00"
55.00"
5.00"
4.00"
R2 = 0.21
20.00"
50.00"
Re#red&(%)&
6.00"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Unemployment*(%)*
Not retired
Deprivation *
Unemployment
45.00"
15.00"
40.00"
10.00"
3.00"
35.00"
R2 = 0.62
2.00"
30.00"
1.00"
5.00"
25.00"
0.00"
0"
10"
y"="0.067x"+"2.1145"
R"="0.62139"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Labour*vote*(%)*
0.00"
20.00"
0"
10"
y"="$0.2947x"+"52.129"
R"="0.4922"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Labour$vote$(%)$
0"
High Denisty
Not White-British
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Labour&vote&(%)&
Low Home Ownership
100.00"
100.00"
10"
y"="$0.1055x"+"17.7"
R"="0.21237"
70.00"
R2 = 0.28
90.00"
65.00"
80.00"
80.00"
60.00"
40.00"
40.00"
20.00"
30.00"
10.00"
Home%Ownership%(%)%
50.00"
20.00"
55.00"
60.00"
60.00"
Popula'on)Density)
70.00"
20"
30"
45.00"
40.00"
35.00"
30.00"
R2 = 0.22
0.00"
0"
10"
y"="$0.5311x"+"99.701"
R"="0.22364"
50.00"
0.00"
0"
40"
50"
Labour(vote((%)(
Who votes for whom?
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
10"
*20.00"
y"="0.8299x"*"6.2241"
R"="0.2792"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Labour)vote)(%))
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
25.00"
R2 = 0.37
20.00"
0"
10"
y"="$0.4243x"+"78.337"
R"="0.37861"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Labour%vote%(%)%
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
+ These factors also correlate with low turnout

70.00"
10.00"
30.00"
65.00"
9.00"
R2 = 0.48
55.00"
6.00"
50.00"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
7.00"
5.00"
4.00"
2.00"
30.00"
1.00"
25.00"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Turnout(%)*
10.00"
5.00"
20.00"
0"
10"
y"="1.0115x")"24.144"
R"="0.57884"
Not White-British
0.00"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Turnout(%)$
0"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Turnout(%)&
100.00"
R2 = 0.14
140.00"
90.00"
80.00"
80.00"
120.00"
70.00"
60.00"
50.00"
40.00"
100.00"
Home%Ownership%(%)%
Popula'on)Density))
70.00"
Ethnicity(White(Bri-sh((%)(
20"
Low Home Ownership
High Denisty
90.00"
10"
y"="0.2128x"+"0.1781"
R"="0.09749"
160.00"
100.00"
15.00"
40.00"
35.00"
0.00"
R2 = 0.21
20.00"
45.00"
3.00"
y"="$0.1783x"+"16.189"
R"="0.47915"
25.00"
R2 = 0.58
60.00"
Re#red&(%)&
8.00"
Unemployment*(%)*
Not retired
Deprivation *
Unemployment
80.00"
60.00"
60.00"
50.00"
40.00"
30.00"
30.00"
40.00"
20.00"
10.00"
20.00"
R2 = 0.09
0.00"
0"
10"
y"="1.0033x"+"16.54"
R"="0.09183"
20.00"
0.00"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Turnout((%)(
Who votes for whom?
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
R2 = 0.27
10.00"
0"
y"="$1.7525x"+"136.34"
R"="0.14204"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Turnout(%))
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
0.00"
0"
y"="1.076x"*"7.1778"
R"="0.27077"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Turnout(%)%
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Result: the Labour low turnout effect

Turnout : Whole UK
Turnout : Scotland not included
100"
100"
90"
90"
R2 = 0.40
70"
70"
60"
60"
50"
50"
40"
40"
30"
30"
20"
20"
10"
10"
0"
0"
10"
y"="$0.2111x"+"73.078"
R"="0.39774"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Labour'vote'(%)'
60"
70"
80"
90"
R2 = 0.41
80"
Turnout'(%)'
Turnout'(%)'
80"
100"
0"
0"
10"
y"="$0.2041x"+"72.529"
R"="0.4147"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Labour'vote'(%)'
These correlations between Labour vote and turnout are incredibly strong
Is this solely due to demographic factors, or is there a Labour effect?
Are voters less likely to turnout in Labour areas due to the lack of vision in
Labour; as John Cruddas says, have voters lost their emotional connection to
Labour?
Who votes for whom?
Party strength and turnout

Labour
Conservatives
100"
100"
90"
90"
Turnout'(%)'
Turnout'(%)'
60"
50"
30"
30"
20"
R2 = 0.41
0"
0"
10"
y"="$0.2041x"+"72.529"
R"="0.4147"
20"
R2 = 0.41
10"
10"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Labour'vote'(%)'
0"
0"
10"
y"="0.2289x"+"56.834"
R"="0.41745"
Liberal Democrats
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
90"
100"
Conserva0ve'vote'(%)'
Majority
100"
100"
90"
90"
80"
80"
70"
70"
60"
Turnout'(%)'
Turnout'(%)'
I was astonished to
see the size of the
majority does not
correlate with
turnout: voters are
(overall) as likely to
turnout to vote in
extremely safe seats
as super marginals
50"
40"
50"
60"
50"
40"
40"
30"
30"
10"
60"
40"
20"
No other party vote

correlates to low
turnout
70"
70"
20"
80"
80"
R2 = 0.00
20"
R2 = 0.12
10"
0"
0"
10"
y"="0.2384x"+"63.891"
R"="0.12684"
20"
30"
LibDem'vote'(%)'
Who votes for whom?
40"
50"
60"
0"
0"
10"
y"="$0.0118x"+"66.056"
R"="0.00102"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Majority'(%)'
60"
70"
80"
+ Why is there a Labour low turnout effect?
10
We can test whether there is a Labour effect independent of

demographics in a simple way.
Using the result for the other demographic factors (in this case, I will
choose unemployment, which had the strongest correlation with
Labour vote, and the second strongest with turnout), and calculate
an expected turnout from the best linear fit:
n
Unemployment (%) = -0.18 x Expected Turnout (%) + 16.2%
We can then see whether the difference:

Actual Turnout Expected Turnout correlates with Labour vote
If there is no correlation, then these demographic factors are

sufficient to explain the low turnout in seats where the Labour vote is
strong
I will look at results excluding Scotland, to avoid the possibility of a

special Scottish exceptionalism effect
Who votes for whom?
+ Why is there a Labour low turnout effect?
11
Turnout (Actual Expected)

Scotland not included
40"
R2 = 0.03
Actual'Turnout','Expected'Turnout(%)'
30"
20"
10"
0"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
$10"
$20"
$30"
y"="$0.0817x"+"3.149"
R"="0.03004"
Labour'vote'(%)'
We see (effectively) no correlation: demographic factors are sufficient to explain low turnout in Labour seats
However, Labour should not be too comforted by these results. The fact remains, turnout is in long-term decline among the
poorest and most vulnerable voters: as the results showed, these are still demographics that lean strongly toward Labour.
Labour is hurt by this effect.
It seems likely that these demographics feel either too disenfranchised or too disinterested to turn out to vote. It is still
possible that these demographics do not vote because they feel uninspired by Labour (but it is a demographic effect
nonetheless).
Who votes for whom?
+ The Labour low turnout effect
12
If did not vote were a party, Labour would have been almost wiped
out across the country
(I cannot find a source for this map: if I find such a source, I will add it
here)
Who votes for whom?
13
Was there a Green spoiler effect?
Constituency
Brighton,*Pavilion
Bristol*West
Cambridge
Plymouth,*Sutton*and*Devonport
Brighton,*Kemptown
Hove
Bath
Derby*North
Lewes
Ealing*Central*and*Acton
Brentford*and*Isleworth
Gower
Croydon*Central
Hampstead*and*Kilburn
Lancaster*and*Fleetwood
Bury*North
Morley*and*Outwood
Halifax
NewcastleJunderJLyme
St*Ives
Eastbourne
Ilford*North
Barrow*and*Furness
Twickenham
Bedford
Weaver*Vale
Wolverhampton*South*West
Berwickshire,*Roxburgh*and*Selkirk
Enfield*North
Telford
Leeds*North*West
Dumfriesshire,*Clydesdale*and*Tweeddale
Winner
Majority,(%) Green,vote,(%) Green,vote,2,Majority,(%)
Green
14.5
41.8
27.3
Labour
8.9
26.8
17.9
Labour
1.1
7.9
6.8
Conservative
1.1
7.1
6
Conservative
1.5
7
5.5
Labour
2.4
6.8
4.4
Conservative
8.1
11.9
3.8
Conservative
0.1
3.6
3.5
Conservative
2.1
5.5
3.4
Labour
0.5
3.6
3.1
Labour
0.9
3.7
2.8
Conservative
0.1
2.7
2.6
Conservative
0.3
2.7
2.4
Labour
2.1
4.4
2.3
Labour
3.1
5
1.9
Conservative
0.8
2.5
1.7
Conservative
0.9
2.6
1.7
Labour
1
2.6
1.6
Labour
1.5
2.9
1.4
Conservative
5.1
6.3
1.2
Conservative
1.4
2.6
1.2
Labour
1.2
2.1
0.9
Labour
1.8
2.5
0.7
Conservative
3.3
4
0.7
Conservative
2.4
3.1
0.7
Conservative
1.8
2.5
0.7
Labour
2
2.6
0.6
Scottish=National=Party 0.6
1.1
0.5
Labour
2.3
2.8
0.5
Conservative
1.8
2.3
0.5
Liberal=Democrat
6.7
7
0.3
Conservative
1.5
1.6
0.1
Green vote exceeded

the winners majority in
32 seats
Of these, 16 were won

by Conservatives
Without these seats,

Cameron would have
only 315 sets: he would
have no majority and
need two of the Liberal
Democrats, DUP or
UKIP in order form a
majority
However, the Green

vote is an important
component (above 8%)
in around 35 seats, and
above 5% in around
130 seats
+ What predicts the Liberal Democrat Vote?
LibDem'2010'(%)'
Change in LibDem vote against LibDem vote in 2010

40"
70.0"
30"
R2 = 0.03 60.0"
50.0"
20"
40.0"
10"
30.0"
0"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
20.0"
$10"
R2 = 0.37
10.0"
$20"
0.0"
$40.0"
$35.0"
$30"
y"="$0.0817x"+"3.149"
y"="$1.2454x"+"4.0449"
R"="0.03004"
R"="0.37266"
$30.0"
$25.0"
$20.0"
$15.0"
$10.0"
$5.0"
0.0"
LibDem'2015'/'LibDem'2010'vote'(%)'
Labour'vote'(%)'
Liberal Democrat vote fell in every single seat
One of the best predictors of how much the LibDem vote fell was their previous vote in 2010
In other words, the fall in the Liberal Democrat vote was not a uniform swing: the swing was so large
that the vote would fall by a similar proportion in every constituency, related to their previous vote
The trend is extremely strong, but it would be interesting to understand those seats that are exceptions
Liberal Democrat: Where did they collapse or survive?
14
+ Did the Liberal Democrats hold out better in Scotland?

40"
70.0"
30"
R2 = 0.03 60.0"
LibDem'2010'(%)'
50.0"
20"
40.0"
10"
30.0"
0"
0"
$10"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
R2 = 0.37
10.0"
$20"
$40.0"
100"
20.0"
0.0"
$35.0"
$30.0"
$30"
y"="$0.0817x"+"3.149"
y"="$1.2452x"+"4.0554"
R"="0.03004"
R"="0.37301"
$25.0"
$20.0"
$15.0"
Labour'vote'(%)'
$10.0"
$5.0"
0.0"
$10.0"
Some have argued that the Liberal Democrat vote held out better in Scotland, compared to the
rest of the country. Ive coloured the Scottish constituencies in Green.
Comparing against the Liberal Democrat vote in 2010, we see the Liberal Democrat vote in
Scotland did not hold out any more strongly: if anything the trend is slightly worse
A handful of constituencies seem to have held out more strongly: lets try to find out why.
15
+ The incredible Liberal Democrat incumbency bonus
16
LibDem'2010'(%)'

40"
70.0"
30"
R2 = 0.03 60.0"
50.0"
20"
40.0"
10"
0"
30.0"
R = 0.78
0" 2
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
20.0"
$10"
R2 = 0.19
10.0"
$20"
0.0"
$40.0"
$35.0"
$30"
y"="$1.3898x"$"0.3815"
y"="$0.0817x"+"3.149"
R"="0.77825"
R"="0.03004"
$30.0"
$25.0"
y"="$0.3941x"+"39.761"
R"="0.19016"
$20.0"
$15.0"
$10.0"
$5.0"
0.0"
Labour'vote'(%)'
I have coloured seats with a Liberal Democrat incumbent in Yellow

This huge incumbency bonus can explain almost all of those results that did better than the trend
Really we have two different data sets here: one for non-Liberal Democrat incumbent seats, and
one for seats with a Liberal Democrat incumbent: these faired far better.
In incumbent seats, Liberal Democrat vote not only fell by less, but it decreased less steeply
based on existing vote.
No other party sees anything like this sort of incumbency bonus
+ Who benefitted from a falling Liberal Democrat vote?

Labour
Conservatives
0.0"
$30.0"
$20.0"
$10.0"
0.0"
0.0"
10.0"
20.0"
$15.0"
$10.0"
$5.0"
0.0"
$5.0"
$10.0"
$10.0"
$20.0"
= 0.20
$25.0"
y"="$0.2902x"$"14.942"
R"="0.20114"
$20.0"
$5.0"
$15.0"
R2
30.0"
LibDem'2015','LibDem'2010'vote'(%)'
$40.0"
17
10.0"
15.0"
$15.0"
$20.0"
R2
= 0.15
$25.0"
$30.0"
$30.0"
$35.0"
$35.0"
$40.0"
Labour'2015','Labour'2010'vote'(%)'
5.0"
y"="$0.5202x"$"14.818"
R"="0.15514"
$40.0"
Conserva8ve'2015','Conserva8ve'2010'vote'(%)'
Both Conservatives and Labour votes increased, in proportion to the

fall in the Liberal Democrat vote
The correlation is stronger for Labour: they were more dependent

on a falling Liberal Democrat vote than the Conservatives
Lets exclude Scotland, where both the Liberal Democrat and

Labour votes collapsed to the SNP.
Who benefitted most from the Liberal Democrat fall?
Labour
Conservatives
0.0"
$10.0"
$5.0"
0.0"
0.0"
5.0"
10.0"
15.0"
20.0"
25.0"
$15.0"
$10.0"
$5.0"
0.0"
$5.0"
$10.0"
$10.0"
$20.0"
= 0.18
$25.0"
y"="$0.6035x"$"12.439"
R"="0.17835"
$20.0"
$5.0"
$15.0"
R2
30.0"
$15.0"
10.0"
15.0"
$20.0"
R2
= 0.11
$25.0"
$30.0"
$35.0"
$35.0"
Labour'2015','Labour'2010'vote'(%)'
5.0"
$15.0"
$30.0"
$40.0"
18
y"="$0.5789x"$"13.63"
R"="0.11261"
$40.0"
Conserva8ve'2015','Conserva8ve'2010'vote'(%)'
Labour were still the biggest beneficiaries, but the Conservatives did increasingly well where the Liberal
Democrat vote fell the most (were the Conservatives targeting these seats?)
A 15% fall in LibDem vote correlated with a 4.2% rise in Labour vote
A 15% fall in LibDem vote correlated with a 2.4% rise in Conservative vote
A 20% fall in LibDem vote correlated with a 12.7% rise in Labour vote
A 20% fall in LibDem vote correlated with an 11.0% rise in Conservative vote
+ Two good predictors of Conservative vote share

Unemployment
Deprivation
10.00"
70.00"
9.00"
65.00"
R2 = 0.20
8.00"
60.00"
7.00"
55.00"
6.00"
50.00"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Unemployed*(%)*
19
5.00"
4.00"
45.00"
40.00"
3.00"
35.00"
2.00"
30.00"
1.00"
25.00"
0.00"
R2 = 0.15
20.00"
0"
y"="$0.0592x"+"6.5453"
R"="0.45393"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
Conserva3ve*vote*(%)*
100"
0"
y"="0.3489x"+"28.765"
R"="0.54862"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Conserva3ve$vote$(%)$
Just as Labour vote is highest in seats with high unemployment and

deprivation, Conservative vote is lowest, and vice versa
But what accounts for those seats where the Conservative vote looks
spuriously low, given the low unemployment and deprivation?
+ Where Liberal Democrats hold seats, Conservatives do worse

Unemployment
20
Deprivation
70.00"
10.00"
65.00"
9.00"
R2
8.00"
= 0.20
60.00"
LibDem"in"2010"
7.00"
55.00"
6.00"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Unemployed*(%)*
LibDem"held"2015"
5.00"
4.00"
50.00"
45.00"
40.00"
R2 = 0.15
R2 = 0.15
35.00"
3.00"
R2
2.00"
= 0.20
30.00"
25.00"
1.00"
0.00"
20.00"
0"
y"="$0.0592x"+"6.5453"
R"="0.45393"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
Conserva3ve*vote*2015*(%)*
100"
0"
y"="0.3489x"+"28.765"
R"="0.54862"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Conserva3ve$vote$2015$(%)$
In seats with a Liberal Democrat incumbent (orange) and held by the Liberal
Democrats in 2015 (yellow), the Conservative vote is usually substantially worse
than one would expect from demographic factors
Is this due to anti-Labour tactical voting by Coalition supporters? Or due to a

successful soft-Tory squeeze by the Liberal Democrats in the seats they were
defending? Or something else?
+ Where Liberal Democrats hold seats, Conservatives do worse

Unemployment
Deprivation
70.00"
10.00"
65.00"
9.00"
We see almost exactly

the same pattern in
2010 and in 2015: it is
not a Coalition effect
So it is probably due
to demographics: both
Liberal Democrats and
Conservatives have a
similar, middle class
voter base
In seats where these

types of voters vote
Liberal Democrat, they
dont vote
Conservative
60.00"
8.00"
LibDem"in"2010"
7.00"
55.00"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Unemployed*(%)*
LibDem"held"2015"
6.00"
5.00"
4.00"
45.00"
40.00"
35.00"
2.00"
30.00"
2015
2015
25.00"
20.00"
0.00"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
0"
100"
y"="$0.0592x"+"6.5453"
R"="0.45393"
10.00"
70.00"
9.00"
65.00"
8.00"
60.00"
7.00"
55.00"
6.00"
50.00"
5.00"
4.00"
35.00"
30.00"
2010
1.00"
0.00"
y"="$0.0625x"+"6.6057"
R"="0.41059"
20.0"
30.0"
40.0"
50.0"
60.0"
30"
70.0"
80.0"
90.0"
100.0"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
40.00"
2.00"
10.0"
20"
45.00"
3.00"
0.0"
10"
y"="0.3489x"+"28.765"
R"="0.54862"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Unemployed*(%)*
50.00"
3.00"
1.00"
21
2010
25.00"
20.00"
0.0"
10.0"
y"="0.3616x"+"28.735"
R"="0.47741"
20.0"
30.0"
40.0"
50.0"
60.0"
70.0"
80.0"
90.0"
100.0"
+ Scottish Turnout: uniformly higher than England?
22
Turnout vs. Unemployment

10.00"
10.00"
10.00"
2015
9.00"
9.00"
2010
9.00"
R2 = 0.48
8.00"
8.00"
LibDem"in"2010"
7.00"
7.00"
R2 = 0.59
8.00"
7.00"
Unemployment*(%)*
Unemployed*(%)*
Unemployment*(%)*
LibDem"held"2015"
6.00"
6.00"
5.00"
5.00"
4.00"
4.00"
6.00"
5.00"
4.00"
3.00"
3.00"
3.00"
2.00"
2.00"
2.00"
1.00"
1.00"
1.00"
0.00"
0.00"
0.00"
0"0"
10"
10"
20"20"
30"30"
y"="$0.1783x"+"16.189"
y"="$0.0592x"+"6.5453"
R"="0.47915"
R"="0.45393"
40"40"
50" 50"
60" 60"
Turnout(%)*
70" 70"
80" 80"
90" 90" 100" 100"
0.0"
10.0"
20.0"
y"="$0.1946x"+"17.067"
R"="0.5924"
30.0"
40.0"
50.0"
60.0"
70.0"
80.0"
90.0"
100.0"
Turnout*2010*(%)*
I have coloured Scottish seats Green
Turnout in Scotland was 71.1%, higher than the UK as a whole (66.1%)
This is a new effect (probably a result of the referendum and Scottish spring- the surge in Nationalist enthusiasm and
support.
In 2010, Scottish turnout, for a given unemployment, was typical of the UK. In 2015, Scottish turnout was higher, for a given
unemployment.
Is Scotland Exceptional?
+ Scottish Turnout: uniformly higher than England?
23
Turnout vs. Young voter (18-24) proportion

10.00"
35.00"
35.00"
2015
9.00"
30.00"
8.00"
25.00"
7.00"
R2 = 0.12
30.00"
LibDem"in"2010"
25.00"
2010
R2 = 0.18
6.00"
20.00"
Age$18'25$(%)$
Age$18'25$(%)$
Unemployed*(%)*
LibDem"held"2015"
5.00"
15.00"
4.00"
3.00"
10.00"
20.00"
15.00"
10.00"
2.00"
5.00"
5.00"
1.00"
0.00"
0.00"
0.00"
0"
10"
10"
20"
20"
30"
30"
y"="$0.2239x"+"24.131"
y"="$0.0592x"+"6.5453"
R"="0.11856"
R"="0.45393"
40"
40"
50"50"
60"60"
Turnout(%)$
70" 70"
80" 80"
90" 90"
100" 100"
0.0"
y"="$0.2685x"+"26.811"
R"="0.17678"
10.0"
20.0"
30.0"
40.0"
50.0"
60.0"
70.0"
80.0"
90.0"
100.0"
Turnout$2010$(%)$
Young voters (18 24) are in general less likely to vote than older voters
In 2010, Scottish turnout, for a given proportion of young voters, was lower than the UK average. In
2015, Scottish turnout was higher, for a given proportion of young voters had risen to about
typical of the UK average.
(Scottish seats are in general older than the UK average, so other things being equal, one would
expect higher turnout: until 2015, this is not what we saw)
+ Scotland: UKIP not welcome here?
24
White-British
Retired
100.00"
30.00"
90.00"
R2
25.00"
= 0.15
70.00"
20.00"
Re#red&(%)&
R2 = 0.13
80.00"
15.00"
10.00"
60.00"
50.00"
40.00"
30.00"
20.00"
5.00"
10.00"
0.00"
0"
5"
y"="0.2378x"+"11.049"
R"="0.14912"
10"
15"
20"
25"
UKIP&vote&(%)&
30"
35"
40"
45"
50"
0.00"
0"
5"
10"
y"="1.0829x"+"68.138"
R"="0.13082"
15"
20"
25"
30"
35"
40"
45"
50"
UKIP(vote((%)(
Two of the best predictors of UKIP vote are the proportion of the popualtion who is retired and
white-British
The Scottish seats are the largest exception to this: the UKIP vote is almost uniform with both,
between about 1 and 4 %, lower than almost any other seats, including London
Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives also performed worse in Scotland, but by a smaller
amount
+ Scotland: Labour implosion and Conservative survival
25
Change in vote share 2015 against 2010 vote share

Conservatives
Labour
70.0"
80.0#
70.0#
60.0"
60.0#
50.0"
Conserva)ve*2010*(%)*
Labour'2010'(%)'
50.0#
40.0#
30.0#
40.0"
30.0"
20.0"
20.0#
10.0"
10.0#
0.0"
0.0#
,40.0#
,30.0#
,20.0#
,10.0#
0.0#
Labour'2015'/'Labour'2010'vote'(%)'
10.0#
20.0#
30.0#
320.0"
315.0"
y"="1.0938x"+"34.584"
R"="0.08643"
310.0"
35.0"
0.0"
5.0"
10.0"
15.0"
Conserva)ve*2015*2*Conserva)ve*2010*vote*(%)*
Unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and Labour mostly did not see a correlation
between the 2010 vote share and the change in the 2015: close to a uniform swing
The Labour Scottish vote is an exception: their vote share fell in proportion to the 2010 vote: a
Liberal Democrat style collapse
The conservative vote share in Scotland fell by a little less than expected, but mostly from a low
base
26
UKIPland: the top 40 UKIP seats
ConstituencyName
Clacton
Boston*and*Skegness
South*Thanet
Heywood*and*Middleton
Thurrock
Castle*Point
Rochester*and*Strood
Rotherham
Dagenham*and*Rainham
Rother*Valley
Hartlepool
South*Basildon*and*East*Thurrock
North*Thanet
Hornchurch*and*Upminster
West*Bromwich*West
Mansfield
Great*Grimsby
Wentworth*and*Dearne
Sittingbourne*and*Sheppey
StokeFonFTrent*North
Bradford*South
Doncaster*Central
Dudley*North
Bolton*South*East
Don*Valley
Barnsley*East
South*West*Norfolk
Great*Yarmouth
Penistone*and*Stocksbridge
Romford
Folkestone*and*Hythe
StokeFonFTrent*Central
Doncaster*North
North*East*Cambridgeshire
Makerfield
Kingston*upon*Hull*East
Rayleigh*and*Wickford
Blyth*Valley
Barking
Region
East%of%England
East%Midlands
South%East
North%West
East%of%England
East%of%England
South%East
Yorkshire%and%The%Humber
London
North%East
East%of%England
South%East
London
West%Midlands
East%Midlands
South%East
West%Midlands
West%Midlands
North%West
East%of%England
East%of%England
London
South%East
West%Midlands
East%of%England
North%West
East%of%England
North%East
London
Winner15
UKIP/vote/(%) Con/vote/(%) Lab/vote/(%) LD/vote/(%)
UKIP
44.4
36.7
14.4
1.8
Conservative
33.8
43.8
16.5
2.3
Conservative
32.4
38.1
23.8
1.9
Labour
32.2
19.1
43.1
3.3
Conservative
31.7
33.7
32.6
1.3
Conservative
31.2
50.9
13.8
1.8
Conservative
30.5
44.1
19.8
2.4
Labour
30.2
12.3
52.5
2.9
Labour
29.8
24.4
41.4
1.7
Labour
28.1
23.3
43.6
4.2
Labour
28
20.9
35.6
1.9
Conservative
26.5
43.4
25.2
3
Conservative
25.7
49
17.9
3.5
Conservative
25.3
49
20.1
2.7
Labour
25.2
23.9
47.3
1.6
Labour
25.1
28.2
39.4
3.5
Labour
25
26.3
39.8
5
Labour
24.9
14.9
56.9
2.6
Conservative
24.8
49.5
19.6
3.2
Labour
24.7
27.4
39.9
2.9
Labour
24.1
26.3
43.4
2.9
Labour
24.1
20.7
49.1
4.2
Labour
24
30.8
41.8
1.3
Labour
23.6
20.3
50.5
2.6
Labour
23.5
25.3
46.2
3.5
Labour
23.5
14.6
54.7
3.1
Conservative
23.3
50.9
17.3
4.4
Conservative
23.1
42.9
29.1
2.3
Labour
22.9
27.7
42
6.3
Conservative
22.8
51
20.9
2.9
Conservative
22.8
47.9
14.4
8.9
Labour
22.7
22.5
39.3
4.2
Labour
22.6
18.3
52.4
2.5
Conservative
22.5
55.1
14.4
4.5
Labour
22.4
19.5
51.8
3.7
Labour
22.4
15.9
51.7
6.5
Conservative
22.3
54.7
12.6
3
Labour
22.3
21.7
46.3
5.9
Labour
22.2
16.3
57.7
1.3
More of these Labour

seats (23) are at threat
to UKIP than
Conservative seats (15)
For both Labour and

Conservatives, average
majority = 20 points
All UKIPland seats

are in England, only 4
in London
Labour seats typically

midlands & North,
Conservative seats in
the South
27
Vote share against Unemployment

Conservatives
Labour
10.00"
10.00"
9.00"
9.00"
8.00"
8.00"
7.00"
7.00"
70.0"
Unemployed*(%)*
Unemployment*(%)*
60.0"
6.00"
5.00"
4.00"
3.00"
50.0"
6.00"
40.0"
5.00"
30.0"
4.00"
3.00"
2.00"
20.0"
2.00"
R2 = 0.56
R2 = 0.45
10.0"
1.00"
1.00"
0.00"
0"
10"
y"="0.0647x"+"2.2853"
R"="0.56375"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
Labour*vote*(%)*
90"
100"
0.00"
320.0"
0"
315.0"
10"
y"="1.0938x"+"34.584"
y"="$0.0592x"+"6.5453"
R"="0.08643"
R"="0.45393"
310.0"
20"
30"
35.0"
40"
0.0"
50" 0.0"
60"
5.0"
70"
80" 10.0" 90"
15.0"
100"
Conserva3ve*vote*(%)*
I have coloured UKIP top-40 seats pink
Labour do worse than expected (given demographic factors like unemployment) in UKIP top-40 seats
Conservatives do better than expected (given demographic factors like unemployment) in UKIP top-40 seats
This can mostly be attributed to the fact that UKIP top-40 seats are more white-British and older than the population as a
whole: these factors also benefit the Conservatives as well as UKIP
Is UKIPland Exceptional?
28
Vote share against Retired population proportion

Conservatives
Labour
30.00"
30.00"
70.0"
R2 = 0.21
25.00"
25.00"
20.00"
20.00"
R2 = 0.07
60.0"
Re#red&(%)&
Re#red&(%)&
50.0"
15.00"
40.0"
15.00"
30.0"
10.00"
10.00"
20.0"
5.00"
5.00"
0.00"
0"
10"
y"="$0.1046x"+"17.66"
R"="0.21023"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
Labour&vote&(%)&
90"
100"
0.00"
0"
10"
320.0"
315.0"
y"="0.0597x"+"12.086"
R"="0.06601"
y"="1.0938x"+"34.584"
R"="0.08643"
10.0"
20"
310.0"
30"
40"
35.0"
0.0"
50" 0.0"
60"
70"
5.0"
80" 10.0" 90"
100"
15.0"
Conserva#ve&vote&(%)&
I have coloured UKIP top-40 seats pink
Labour do better than expected (given retired population) in UKIP top-40 seats: those UKIP seats tend to have higher
unemployment, deprivation et cetera
Conservatives do worse than expected (given retired population) in UKIP top-40 seats:
Overall, UKIP seats can be summarised as poorer, whiter and older than the UK as a whole: with mixed opportunities for the
two largest parties
n
+ Turnout in UKIPland
29
Turnout vs. Not Deprived
Turnout vs. Unemployment

10.00"
70.00"
80.0#
9.00"
70.0"
65.00"
70.0#
R2 = 0.58
60.0"
60.00"
8.00"
60.0#
50.0#
6.00"
5.00"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Unemployment*(%)*
Labour'2010'(%)'
50.0"
55.00"
7.00"
40.0#
4.00"
30.0#
50.00"
40.0"
45.00"
30.0"
40.00"
35.00"
3.00"
20.0"
20.0#
2.00"
30.00"
R2 = 0.48
0.00"
,40.0#
0"
,30.0#
10"
y"="$0.1783x"+"16.189"
R"="0.47915"
20"
,20.0#
10.0"
10.0#
1.00"
30"
,10.0#
40"
0.0#
50" 0.0#
25.00"
60"
Turnout(%)*
10.0#
70"
80" 20.0# 90"
30.0#
100"
20.00"
320.0"
0"
315.0"
10"
y"="1.0115x")"24.144"
y"="1.0938x"+"34.584"
R"="0.57884"
R"="0.08643"
20"
310.0"
30"
35.0"
40"
0.0"
50" 0.0"
60"
5.0"
70"
80" 10.0" 90"
15.0"
100"
Turnout(%)$
Turnout is completely typical in the top 40 UKIP seats, when

comparing against other demographic factors
There was no observable UKIP turnout effect
+ Which seats saw the largest Labour increases?

Constituency
Birmingham,*Hall*Green
Brent*Central
Sheffield,*Hallam
Poplar*and*Limehouse
Bethnal*Green*and*Bow
Birmingham,*Ladywood
Walthamstow
Manchester,*Gorton
Hornsey*and*Wood*Green
Birmingham,*Hodge*Hill
Liverpool,*Wavertree
Leyton*and*Wanstead
Ilford*South
Leicester*South
Bermondsey*and*Old*Southwark
Bradford*East
Sheffield*Central
Kingston*upon*Hull*North
Ealing,*Southall
Manchester,*Withington
Ealing*Central*and*Acton
Lewisham*East
Sefton*Central
Cambridge
Hampstead*and*Kilburn
Cardiff*Central
Redcar
Liverpool,*West*Derby
Middlesbrough
Region
Labour,vote
Labour,increase White,British,(%)
West*Midlands
59.8
26.88
30.50
London
62.1
20.88
17.56
Yorkshire*and*The*Humber
35.8
19.71
89.24
London
58.5
18.5
28.82
London
61.2
18.26
33.61
West*Midlands
73.6
17.93
21.34
London
68.9
17.06
29.11
North*West
67.1
16.97
44.93
London
50.9
16.89
47.29
West*Midlands
68.4
16.42
33.13
North*West
69.3
16.2
79.51
London
58.6
15
31.38
London
64
14.58
17.30
East*Midlands
59.8
14.22
43.96
London
43.1
13.85
40.68
46.6
13.79
49.41
55
13.67
67.06
52.8
13.62
86.98
London
65
13.49
19.75
North*West
53.7
13.25
68.59
London
43.2
13.06
39.34
London
55.7
12.64
45.28
North*West
53.8
11.9
96.36
East*of*England
36
11.72
65.81
London
44.4
11.59
40.34
Wales
40
11.23
74.53
North*East
43.9
11.15
97.42
North*West
75.2
11.06
91.53
North*East
56.8
10.91
81.72
Which seats saw the largest Labour increases?
30
The largest Labour swings were

often in seats of very high ethnical
diversity
However it is unsurprising that

such seats represent special
cases
In 4 of these seats, the large swing

was due to the collapse of the
Respect vote (Birmingham Hall
Green, Poplar & Limehouse,
Bethnal Green & Bow, and Bradford
East)
In other cases, it was due to a

reversion back to Labour in
Liberal Democrat seats: Brent
Central, Redcar, etc
In most cases, they were due to

particularly strong falls in Liberal
Democrat votes, especially in
urban, northern seats, hit hard by
the recession and where the
Coalition is unpopular
+ Where did the Labour vote increase?
31
Labour vote 2010
Not White British
LD vote 2010
80.0"
100.00"
90.00"
70.0"
70.0"
60.0"
80.00"
60.0"
50.0"
50.0"
Labour'2010'(%)'
60.00"
50.00"
40.00"
LibDem'2010'(%)'
70.00"
40.0"
30.0"
40.0"
30.0"
30.00"
20.0"
20.0"
20.00"
0.00"
$15.0"
$10.0"
$5.0"
10.0"
10.0"
R2 = 0.25 10.00"
0.0"
5.0"
10.0"
15.0"
Labour(2015(;(Labour(2010(vote((%)(
20.0"
25.0"
y"="$2.0336x"+"88.883"
R"="0.24837"
30.0"
R2 = 0.02
R2 = 0.12
0.0"
315.0"
310.0"
y"="0.5166x"+"28.137"
R"="0.02394"
35.0"
0.0"
5.0"
10.0"
15.0"
20.0"
25.0"
30.0"
0.0"
115.0"
110.0"
y"="0.7341x"+"21.142"
R"="0.11524"
15.0"
0.0"
5.0"
10.0"
15.0"
20.0"
25.0"
30.0"
Labour'2015'3'Labour'2010'vote'(%)'
(To give a clearer correlation, Scotland excluded in above 3 plots)

n
Labour saw much larger increases in areas of greater ethnic diversity (lower White
British population). These areas will increase in importance in future elections
Despite that, the Labour vote increases were only very weakly correlated (if at all)
with previous Labour vote: increases in vote were not exclusively confined to
heartlands
This may be due to Labour facing threats from UKIP and the Greens in traditional
heartland areas, whilst winning Liberal Democrat votes seats across the country
The previous Liberal Democrat vote was a fairly good predictor of how much Labour
the vote would increase
Which seats saw the largest Labour increases?
+ Did Labour fail to win Middle England?

Population Density
Home Ownership
90.00"
2010 Majority
70.0"
160.00"
80.00"
R2
140.00"
70.00"
32
= 0.21
60.0"
120.00"
50.0"
70.0"
60.0"
R2 = 0.00
50.0"
40.00"
LibDem'2010'(%)'
50.00"
80.00"
60.00"
30.00"
Majority)2010)(%))
100.00"
Popula'on)Density)
Home%Ownership%(%)%
60.00"
40.0"
30.0"
20.0"
40.00"
20.00"
10.0"
10.00"
R2
20.00"
= 0.21
0.00"
$15.0"
$10.0"
$5.0"
y"="$1.1512x"+"68.121"
R"="0.21088"
0.00"
0.0"
5.0"
10.0"
15.0"
20.0"
25.0"
Labour%vote%2015%;%2010%(%)%
30.0"
115.0"
110.0"
15.0"
y"="2.6043x"+"12.586"
R"="0.20816"
0.0"
5.0"
10.0"
Labour)vote)2015)8)2010)(%))
15.0"
20.0"
25.0"
30.0"
40.0"
30.0"
20.0"
10.0"
0.0"
0.0"
115.0"
110.0"
15.0"
0.0"
5.0"
10.0"
15.0"
$15.0"
$10.0"
$5.0"
0.0"
5.0"
10.0"
15.0"
Labour'2015'3'Labour'2010'vote'(%)'
y"="0.7341x"+"21.142"
y"="$0.0717x"+"18.041"
Labour)vote)2015)6)2010)(%))
R"="0.11524"
R"="0.00081"
20.0"
20.0"
25.0"
25.0"
30.0"
30.0"
(To give a clearer correlation, Scotland excluded in above 3 plots)

n
Labour vote increases were mostly confined to urban areas and regions that did badly under the
Coalition
Labour vote decreased in areas of high home ownership, and increased in areas of low home
ownership
Labour vote decreased in areas of low population density and increased in the boroughs
As we have already seen: these are groups with low turnout. Labour is becoming increasingly
reliant on low turnout demographics.
However Labour vote change did not correlate with the 2010 majority: the effects of targeting
marginals by all parties probably roughly cancels out.
Did Labour fail to win Middle England?
33
Key Conclusions
n
Labour is increasingly reliant on demographics that are increasingly unlikely to turn out to vote
The Green spoiler effect was critical in winning the Conservatives 16 seats and their vote is
important (above 5%) in around 130 seats
Liberal Democrat survival was dependent on a huge incumbency bonus in every seat, as well as
squeezing the Conservative vote
Every Liberal Democrat seat is unusual: none of these seats are safe, especially not after
boundary changes
Labour still benefitted more than the Conservatives from Liberal Democrat collapse, but
Conservative gains were very well targeted in crucial seats
Scottish turnout is a little higher than expected from demographics; turnout in seats where UKIP is
strong is typical given the demographics
The risks to Labour from UKIP are as great or greater than the risks to the Conservatives
Labour vote increases were not confined only to traditional Labour seats
However, Labour did do badly in wealthier, suburban, less ethnically diverse areas:middle
England. The reasons are probably complex, including a rise of UKIP and the Greens, and
Conservatives successfully squeezing Liberal Democrat voters.
34
Bonus Slides 1: Interesting Seats

n
In the following slides, I will take a look at those seats that

seem to stand out against the trends I have been describing
We can learn a lot by understanding why some seats behave

differently: not all the important information is contained
within the Census data and voting figures
Where relevant, I will discuss the previous electoral history of

these seats, before 2010
Unemployment
10.00"
70.00"
Birmingham Hodge Hill
Birmingham
Ladywood
9.00"
65.00"
8.00"
60.00"
55.00"
6.00"
Liverpool Walton
(safest seat in the
UK)
5.00"
4.00"
3.00"
50.00"
45.00"
40.00"
35.00"
2.00"
Sheffield Hallam
1.00"
0.00"
0"
10"
y"="0.0647x"+"2.2853"
R"="0.56375"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Labour*vote*(%)*
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Great
30.00"
Yarmouth
25.00"
20.00"
0"
10"
y"="$0.2947x"+"52.129"
R"="0.4922"
Boston & Skegness

Clacton
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Labour$vote$(%)$
Labour vote lower than expected from demographic factors in:

n
n
n
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Unemployment*(%)*
7.00"
35
Deprivation
Birmingham Hodge Hill the reason is not clear. It may be due to the local unpopularity of Liam Byrne
MP, who is associated with New Labour in this seat (the highest Muslim proportion in the country, at
52.1%). Byrne was almost defeated in his first by-election, after the Iraq War in 2004
Birmingham Ladywood a similar constituency, however it was previously held by Clare Short
Clacton, Boston & Skegness and Great Yarmouth: these are three of the UKIPiest constituencies, with a
population deeply concerned about immigration. Clacton is held by the highly popular UKIP MP,
Douglas Carswell. Boston and Skegness is home to a higher proportion of Eastern European migrants
(mostly very low wage) than anywhere else in the UK.
Labour vote higher than expected from demographic factors in:

n
Sheffield Hallam: where Labour came second in spite of demographics, due to the unpopularity of
Nick Clegg, and a very strong campaign by Oliver Coppard.
Interesting seats
White-British
Retired
30.00"
North Norfolk
100.00"
Christchurch
Louth & Horncastle
25.00"
90.00"
Rotherham
Clacton
Re#red&(%)&
20.00"
Heywood
& Middleton
15.00"
Clacton
80.00"
Rochester &
Strood
10.00"
36
70.00"
Thurrock
60.00"
50.00"
Dagenham
& Rainham
40.00"
30.00"
Thurrock
Barking
0.00"
0"
5"
y"="0.2378x"+"11.049"
R"="0.14912"
10"
15"
20"
Dagenham & Rainham

25"
UKIP&vote&(%)&
30"
35"
40"
Barking
20.00"
5.00"
45"
10.00"
50"
0.00"
0"
5"
10"
y"="1.0829x"+"68.138"
R"="0.13082"
15"
20"
25"
30"
35"
40"
45"
50"
UKIP(vote((%)(
UKIP vote lower than expected from demographic factors in:

n
n
n
n
n
Clacton presumably due to to the massive local popularity of Douglas Carswell

Rochester & Strood presumably due to the Mark Reckless effect
Hewood and Middleton an area of huge local anger after the abuse scandal in Haywood. UKIP were
only 2% short of winning the 2014 by election, in the wake of the scandal
Rotherham site of another child grooming scandal, leading to huge public anger
Barking and Dagenham and Rainham although little commented on, these were seats where UKIP did
well. Formerly, they were BNP strongholds, including Nick Griffins former seat. In both, the BNP
previously polled above 10%, and were sites of ethnic tension.
The UKIP vote neatly tracks the white flight from East London, and into the Thames estuary and Essex.
Barking & Dagenham are areas of white emigration: the white British population fell by 30.6% in 10 years
n
UKIP did surprisingly poorly in North Norfolk, Cristchurch, and Louth and Horncastle, all of which look
like ideal UKIP seats from the demographics.
Interesting seats
Manchester Central has the lowest turnout in the country: surprisingly low even when demographics are
taken into account. It is unclear why the turnout is so low in this constituency
It has a high student population (29%), but 6 seats have even more students, and higher turnout.
In the 2012 by-election, it saw the lowest turnout in postwar Britain, at just 18%
Unemployment
30.00"
65.00"
9.00"
R2
8.00"
= 0.48
7.00"
55.00"
6.00"
50.00"
25.00"
R2 = 0.58
60.00"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Manchester Central
5.00"
4.00"
45.00"
10.00"
30.00"
2.00"
Manchester Central
1.00"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
5.00"
Manchester Central
25.00"
0.00"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Turnout(%)*
y"="$0.1783x"+"16.189"
R"="0.47915"
20.00"
0"
10"
y"="1.0115x")"24.144"
R"="0.57884"
Not White-British
0.00"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Turnout(%)$
0"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Turnout(%)&
80.00"
120.00"
70.00"
60.00"
50.00"
40.00"
Manchester Central
100.00"
Home%Ownership%(%)%
Popula'on)Density))
40"
90.00"
70.00"
60.00"
Manchester Central
80.00"
60.00"
50.00"
40.00"
30.00"
30.00"
10.00"
30"
100.00"
R2 = 0.14
140.00"
80.00"
20.00"
20"
Low Home Ownership
High Denisty
90.00"
10"
y"="0.2128x"+"0.1781"
R"="0.09749"
160.00"
100.00"
15.00"
40.00"
35.00"
3.00"
R2 = 0.21
20.00"
Re#red&(%)&
Unemployment*(%)*
Not retired
Deprivation
70.00"
10.00"
37
40.00"
20.00"
R2 = 0.09
0.00"
0"
10"
y"="1.0033x"+"16.54"
R"="0.09183"
Manchester Central
20.00"
0.00"
20"
30"
40"
Interesting seats
50"
Turnout((%)(
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
0"
y"="$1.7525x"+"136.34"
R"="0.14204"
10"
20"
30"
R2 = 0.27
10.00"
40"
50"
Turnout(%))
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
0.00"
0"
y"="1.076x"*"7.1778"
R"="0.27077"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
Turnout(%)%
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
40"
Orkney and
Shetland
R2 = 0.03 60.0"
LibDem'2010'(%)'
50.0"
20"
Oxford West and

Abingdon
40.0"
10"
0"
Westmorland & Lonsdale
70.0"
30"
Brent Central
30.0"
R = 0.78
0" 2
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
90"
100"
Montgomeryshire
20.0"
$10"
38
R2
= 0.19
Norwich South
10.0"
$20"
0.0"
$40.0"
$35.0"
$30"
y"="$1.3898x"$"0.3815"
y"="$0.0817x"+"3.149"
R"="0.77825"
R"="0.03004"
$30.0"
$25.0"
y"="$0.3941x"+"39.761"
R"="0.19016"
$20.0"
$15.0"
$10.0"
$5.0"
0.0"
Labour'vote'(%)'
Liberal Democrats experienced no incumbency bonus in Brent Central. They had won the seats main
predecessor, Brent East, in a shock by-election in 2003, after the Iraq War: voters were angry in this otherwise
solidly Labour area: 21% of residents are Muslims. There was strong opposition to the Coalition here, and
incumbent MP Sarah Teather was retiring
Liberal Democrats saw virtually no incumbency bonus in Norwich South. They won the previously safe Labour
seat in 2005, probably due to unpopularity of Labour MP Charles Clarke. This result also looks like reversion to
the mean
In Oxford West and Abingdon and Montgomeryshire, the Liberal Democrats were not incumbent but did almost
as well (or rather less badly) as in incumbency seats. Both were surprise Liberal Democrat losses in 2010: both
results could be a partial reversion to the mean.
Orkney and Shetland voters are seen as the most hostile to independence, seeing Edinburgh as isolated from
them as London. This seat, with a historic Liberal tradition (once held by Jo Grimmond), saw the strongest no
vote in the referendum. Even so, the SNP came within 5 points of taking it.
Tim Farron, of Westmorland and Lonsdale is universally seen as a formidable local campaigner. His spectacular
result seems to cast that beyond doubt!
Interesting seats
39
Deprivation
70.00"
70.00"
Sheffield Hallam
65.00"
Twickenham
60.00"
Twickenham
60.00"
Cambridge
Leeds North West
55.00"
Leeds North West
50.00"
Not$Deprived$(%)$
Not$Deprived$(%)$
55.00"
Sheffield Hallam
65.00"
45.00"
40.00"
50.00"
45.00"
40.00"
35.00"
35.00"
30.00"
30.00"
2015
25.00"
20.00"
0"
10"
y"="0.3489x"+"28.765"
R"="0.54862"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
70"
80"
2010
25.00"
90"
100"
20.00"
0.0"
y"="0.3616x"+"28.735"
R"="0.47741"
10.0"
20.0"
30.0"
40.0"
50.0"
60.0"
70.0"
80.0"
90.0"
100.0"
As I have already discussed, in Liberal Democrat seats of 2010, the Conservative

vote was already lower than expected
In seats where the Liberal Democrats were threatened by Labour , the

Conservative vote was squeezed even further:
from 23.6% to 13.6% in Sheffield Hallam
from 26.6% to 18.6% in Leeds North West
from 25.6% to 15.7% in Cambridge
In others, like Vince Cables seat of Twickenham, the Conservative vote actually
rose, losing the Liberal Democrats the seat
Interesting seats
+ Bonus Slides 2: Multipartiness &

Onepartiness
n
This is widely seen as the most multiparty election in

British history: it would be useful to have a variable by which
to measure this
Newspapers typically report the proportion of the vote held

by e.g. the two main or three main parties
It is not which to use: the share held by the three main parties
fell sharply, whilst the vote held by the two main parties
increased slightly
If we had a variable to use, we could test different seats for

multipartiness, study the result in different elections over
time and even draw comparisons between different countries
Multipartiness and Onepartiness
40
+ Introducing the Multipartiness variable

n
One variable that would be sensitive to what we want would be:

n
Multipartiness =( i(vote share of party i) )/ ( (100) )
This variable will increase the more parties there are, with an
evenly divided vote share
As vote share of party approaches zero, so too does its

contribution to multipartiness, so we can approximate for very
small parties by grouping their vote together under other
In subsequent slides, I make this approximation for parties with

a vote share < 1%
This variable is abitrary, but gives one way to measure

multipartiness. There are infinitely many other variables I
could have defined. It is in no sense the best or only measure
that one could use, and is only meaningful in comparison to
other uses of this measure.
41
+ Introducing the Multipartiness variable

n
For a purely one party state,

multipartiness = 1
With 2 parties, both getting 1/2 of the vote share,
multipartiness = 1.41
With 3 parties, all getting 1/3 of the vote share,
In principle, the variable ranges between 1 and infinity
However, if we have 6 parties, one getting 1/2 of the vote share,

and the other 5 getting 1/10,
A fairly high number, even though the state would be dominated
by a single party, because there are a plurality of viable parties.
I could devise an alternative measure that would take one party

dominance more fully into account
42
+ Introducing the Onepartiness variable

n
I define:
( (100) ) / ( i(vote share of party i) ) * 100
Onepartiness =
Onepartiness = 100 / multipartiness
Onepartiness ranges between 0 and 100; a pure one party state would
have a onepartiness of 100.
However, it is not a percentage. I choose the scale of 0 100 for

convenience only.
Even small deviations from a one party state will have a large effect
For a purely one party state,

onepartiness = 100
With 2 parties, both getting 1/2 of the vote share,
onepartiness = 70.9
43
+ What are Britains most multiparty constituencies?

Constituency
Dwyfor'Meirionnydd
Pontypridd
Preseli'Pembrokeshire
Aberavon
Swansea'West
Bridgend
Cardiff'Central
Cardiff'West
Ceredigion
Cardiff'South'and'Penarth
Cynon'Valley
Isle'of'Wight
Portsmouth'South
Torfaen
Llanelli
Newport'East
Truro'and'Falmouth
Wrexham
Gower
St'Austell'and'Newquay
Merthyr'Tydfil'and'Rhymney
Islwyn
Caerphilly
Camborne'and'Redruth
StokeVonVTrent'Central
Southport
Neath
Richmond'(Yorks)
Rochdale
Region
Wales
Wales
Wales
Wales
Wales
Wales
Wales
Wales
Wales
Wales
Wales
South'East
South'East
Wales
Wales
Wales
South'West
Wales
Wales
South'West
Wales
Wales
Wales
South'West
West'Midlands
North'West
Wales
Yorkshire'and'The'Humber
North'West
Winner
Multipartiness Onepartiness
Plaid'Cymru
2.415513156 41.39907073
Labour
2.385926639 41.91243703
Conservative
2.371275462 42.17139746
Labour
2.369580056
42.2015706
Labour
2.363761517 42.30545226
Labour
2.337400988 42.78256084
Labour
2.331223465 42.89593061
Labour
2.324977144 43.01117551
Liberal'Democrat
2.324602271 43.01811164
Labour
2.308837481 43.31184018
Labour
2.308058994 43.32644887
Conservative
2.306392519 43.35775423
Conservative
2.301767316 43.44487791
Labour
2.297229745 43.53069179
Labour
2.294446067 43.58350428
Labour
2.292471597 43.62104208
Conservative
2.290973955 43.64955778
Labour
2.290536481 43.65789449
Conservative
2.282094147 43.81940163
Conservative
2.271363805 44.02641257
Labour
2.270696834 44.03934445
Labour
2.261856446 44.21147071
Labour
2.260991115 44.22839141
Conservative
2.251046802 44.42377649
Labour
2.249848353 44.44744014
Liberal'Democrat
2.24963875 44.45158139
Labour
2.241148787 44.61997372
Conservative
2.240313043 44.63661911
Labour
2.238100273 44.68075055
44
Many of the highest

multipartiness constituencies
are in Wales
This may seem surprising: it is

a result of there being many
competitive parties: the left is
split between Plaid Cymru and
Labour, neither of which are
dominant, whilst Liberal
Democrats, Conservatives and
UKIP all also receive a
respectful vote share. Green
votes are also typically non
negligible
It is very important to note that

this measure of
multipartiness is arbitrary: a
different choice of variable
could give very different seats
+ What are Britains least multiparty constituencies?

Constituency
Region
Buckingham
South.East
Glenrothes
Scotland
Cumbernauld,.Kilsyth.and.Kirkintilloch.East
Scotland
Liverpool,.Walton
North.West
Kilmarnock.and.Loudoun
Scotland
Banff.and.Buchan
Scotland
Knowsley
North.West
Blackburn
North.West
West.Dunbartonshire
Scotland
Normanton,.Pontefract.and.Castleford
Yorkshire.and.The.Humber
Crewe.and.Nantwich
North.West
Hertsmere
East.of.England
City.of.Chester
North.West
Coatbridge,.Chryston.and.Bellshill
Scotland
Paisley.and.Renfrewshire.SouthScotland
East.Ham
London
Ilford.South
London
Bolsover
East.Midlands
Basildon.and.Billericay
East.of.England
South.Ribble
North.West
Wirral.West
North.West
Hendon
London
Motherwell.and.Wishaw
Scotland
Finchley.and.Golders.Green London
Wentworth.and.Dearne
Yorkshire.and.The.Humber
Glasgow.North.East
Scotland
South.Leicestershire
East.Midlands
Hayes.and.Harlington
London
Battersea
London
Winner
Conservative
1.640435021 60.95943987
Scottish.National.Party
1.741806491 57.41165884
1.751066817 57.10804354
Labour
1.772952712 56.40308359
1.773714154 56.37887016
1.779206592 56.20482774
Labour
1.782103959 56.11344922
Labour
1.799304656 55.57702508
1.818644842 54.98599711
Labour
1.828828606 54.67980961
Conservative
1.832944311 54.55703122
Conservative
1.834242697 54.51841252
Labour
1.835021152 54.49528463
Scottish.National.Party1.83535944 54.48524022
1.836195954 54.46041845
Labour
1.846515463
54.1560588
Labour
1.848670731 54.09292111
Labour
1.85043309
54.0414028
Conservative
1.85268191 53.97580634
Conservative
1.858889421 53.79556141
Labour
1.861357685 53.72422551
Conservative
1.861985347 53.70611543
1.867815686 53.53847317
Conservative
1.873888397 53.36497102
Labour
1.884236224 53.07190189
1.885023742 53.04972971
Conservative
1.88758736 52.97768047
Labour
1.890996905 52.88215954
Conservative
1.897997438 52.68711011
45
Several of the highest

multipartiness constituencies
are in Scotland: this is due to
the dominance of the SNP after
the Scottish surge
Others are ultra-safe Labour or

Conservative seats, such as
Liverpool Walton, the seat of
the largest majority in the UK.
Buckingham is the speakers
seat, not contested by Labour
or the Liberal Democrats,
However, 2 way marginal seats

do give a very low
multipartiness, if the other
parties are very small
It is very important to note that

this measure of
multipartiness is arbitrary: a
different choice of variable
could give very different seats
46
Britains multipartiness over time

Multipartiness
Onepartiness
3"
70"
60"
2.5"
50"
2"
40"
1.5"
30"
1"
20"
0.5"
10"
0"
1940"
1950"
1960"
1970"
1980"
1990"
2000"
2010"
2020"
0"
1940"
1950"
1960"
1970"
1980"
1990"
2000"
2010"
2020"
We can also look at the multipartiness of the entire country
In the postwar period, Britain became close to a two party state, with the Liberal Democrat vote very small, and
politics dominated by the Conservatives and Labour: in 1955 to 1.66 (1.41 is the value for a pure two-party state)
Multipartiness reached a local peak in the 1974 elections, with an increased vote for the SNP and Liberal
Democrats
Since the 1950s, multipartiness has been rising: first driven by the rising Liberal Democrat vote, and now by UKIP,
Greens and the nationalists
47
UK multipartiness in Parliament
Multipartiness
Onepartiness
3"
70"
70"
2.5"
60"
60"
50"
50"
2"
40"
40"
1.5"
30"
30"
1"
20"
0.5"
Vote"
20"
Seats"
10"
10"
0"
1940"
1950"
1960"
1970"
1980"
1990"
2000"
2010"
2020"
0"
0"1940"
1940"
Votes"
Seats"
1950"
1950"
1960"
1960"
1970"
1970"
1980"
1980"
1990"
2000"
1990"
2000"
2010"
2010"
2020"
2020"
We do not only have to use multipartiness to look at vote

distributions: we could also look at seats
It is clear: due to the First Past the Post system, the multipartiness of
seats in Parliament has always been much lower than in terms of
votes, often close to a pure two-party seat distribution
48
German multipartiness over time

Multipartiness
Onepartiness
3"
70"
120"
2.5"
60"
100"
2"
50"
80"
Unifed"Germany"
West"Germany"
East"Germany"
40"
1.5"
60"
30"
1"
40"
20"
Unifed"Germany"
West"Germany"
0.5"
20"
10"
East"Germany"
0"
1940"
1950"
1960"
1970"
1980"
1990"
2000"
2010"
2020"
0"0"
1940"
1940"
1950"
1950"
1960"
1960"
1970"
1970"
1980"
1980"
1990"
1990"
2000"
2000"
2010"
2020"
It is highly instructive to compare with other countries: here I choose postwar East, West and Unified Germany
Newly democratic West Germany initially had a wide variety of parties, most with a heritage from the Weimar era
Despite the proportional voting system, West Germany also became almost a two party state in the 1960s
Since then, multipartiness has been rising, at a similar level to the UK: it has fallen recently due to the dominance
of the CDU
In East Germany, voters were given a single list to approve, although a few spoilt ballots were recorded (hence a
score > 1. The first free election in 1990 saw an explosion of democratic activity
49
International Comparisons
Country
Australia
2.21
45.2
Brazil
2.11
47.5
Ethiopia
2.24
44.6
France
2.16
46.2
Germany
2.28
43.8
Greece
2.94
34.0
India
3.85
26.0
Indonesia
3.22
31.1
Nigeria
1.51
66.3
Pakistan
2.78
35.9
Poland
2.27
44.0
Russia
2.21
45.3
South>Africa
2.10
47.6
Turkey
2.13
47.0
UK
2.40
41.7
Ukraine
3.33
30.0
USA
1.64
60.8
Venezuela
1.68
59.7
Here I look at the most recent elections for

the lower house of the legislature in each
case
It is remarkable how similar the values are

for most Western democracies even with
very different systems: today most have a
multipartiness between 2.10 and 2.40
Countries with one dominant party, but a

highly divided opposition, such as South
Africa and Russia, score relatively highly in
multipartiness. We probably need a
different variable in order to account for this
I am exploring other possible variables to

use

Election Analysis 2015

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Election Analysis 2015

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

+

UK General Election 2015

Slide 4 Is there a Labour Low Turnout Effect?

Slide 13 How strong was the Green Spoiler Effect?

Slide 14 Liberal Democrats: where did they collapse or survive?

Slide 22 Is Scotland Exceptional?

Slide 26 Is UKIPland Exceptional?

Slide 30 Which seats saw the largest Labour increases?

Slide 32 Did Labour lose Middle England?

Slide 33 Key Conclusions

Slide 34 Interesting seats

For the most part, Im using the data gathered here:

Wherever else I need data, Ive taken it from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

What correlates with Labour vote?

Who votes for whom?

What correlates with Labour vote?

Low Home Ownership

Who votes for whom?

+ These correlations change little if we exclude Scotland

Low Home Ownership

Who votes for whom?

+ These factors also correlate with low turnout

Low Home Ownership

Who votes for whom?

Result: the Labour low turnout effect

Turnout : Scotland not included

Is this solely due to demographic factors, or is there a Labour effect?

Who votes for whom?

Party strength and turnout

No other party vote

Who votes for whom?

+ Why is there a Labour low turnout effect?

We can test whether there is a Labour effect independent of

Unemployment (%) = -0.18 x Expected Turnout (%) + 16.2%

We can then see whether the difference:

If there is no correlation, then these demographic factors are

I will look at results excluding Scotland, to avoid the possibility of a

Who votes for whom?

+ Why is there a Labour low turnout effect?

Turnout (Actual Expected)

Who votes for whom?

+ The Labour low turnout effect

Was there a Green spoiler effect?

Was there a Green spoiler effect?

Green vote exceeded

Of these, 16 were won

Without these seats,

However, the Green

+ What predicts the Liberal Democrat Vote?

Change in LibDem vote against LibDem vote in 2010

Liberal Democrat vote fell in every single seat

Liberal Democrat: Where did they collapse or survive?

+ Did the Liberal Democrats hold out better in Scotland?

Liberal Democrat: Where did they collapse or survive?

+ The incredible Liberal Democrat incumbency bonus

Change in LibDem vote against LibDem vote in 2010

I have coloured seats with a Liberal Democrat incumbent in Yellow

Liberal Democrat: Where did they collapse or survive?

+ Who benefitted from a falling Liberal Democrat vote?

Both Conservatives and Labour votes increased, in proportion to the

The correlation is stronger for Labour: they were more dependent

Liberal Democrat: Where did they collapse or survive?

Lets exclude Scotland, where both the Liberal Democrat and

Liberal Democrat: Where did they collapse or survive?