shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
Not exactly what I'm looking for. It's the ones that show which party has gained or lost a state with different shades.
OTL Election maps resources thread
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
Not exactly what I'm looking for. It's the ones that show which party has gained or lost a state with different shades.
The notional result of the 2010 election figures under the 2013 boundary review.
Thanks to psephos for the original map BTW- I amended the NI boundaries and added Orkney and Shetland as well as changing the results on his map. The results are based on the Guardian approximation.
Thanks to psephos for the original map BTW- I amended the NI boundaries and added Orkney and Shetland as well as changing the results on his map. The results are based on the Guardian approximation.
Just to let you know - you have my theoretical seat (Conwy a Colwyn / North Wales Coast) wrong, it would have been comfortably Tory. And I think that approximation uses (for Wales at least) the initial proposal rather than the revised proposals actually submitted to Parliament - possibly just the names, but I can't be certain.
Sorry. TBH this was quite confusing since the seats on the Guardian map and on psephos's map are different, so I probably misread that one. One which I know I screwed up is the area around Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, which is a Labour seat and a Tory seat in some maps, and a single Tory seat in others.
Thande
Donor
Right, I said I was going to do a study of the rich-poor turnout divide with Sheffield Council data (as there's a lot of it on Wiki) so here's what I produced. There are a fair few gaps, mostly because overall figures are usually not given and there's no simple way to calculate them, but there is enough visible here to discern trends I think. Unfortunately the last local election in Sheffield to be synchronised to a general election before 2010 was 1979, for which I do have data but don't have ward boundaries (yet). A pity because that would have been a very interesting comparison. Anyway, a few take-home points here:
1) As with the European elections, my turnout scale does not really go low enough for the late 1990s, where it does not distinguish between wards on 29% and wards on 15% (and yes, there were a few that fell that low);
2) The rich-poor turnout divide has existed since at least 1980, but it has gone through a few changes. It used to be much less pronounced at general elections than local elections, whereas now it seems to be more or less the same factor either way;
3) The divide is visible even in the face of the much more dramatic turnout differential from whether a local election is synchronised with the general or not;
4) I wonder if 2011's above average turnout was specifically driven by the AV referendum or not (which had an average nationwide turnout of 42.2%, a bit above a usual local election turnout);
5) The low turnout in 1992 was presumably because it was a month after the 1992 general election and Labour supporters were demoralised--on the results maps I made before, this was visible in the pie chart showing a huge drop in the Labour popular vote, even though FPTP meant this had little effect on the actual result;
6) Whereas the 1987 local election, held a month before, seems to reflect a higher than average turnout;
7) Postal voting made a big difference when first introduced but little impact on overall turnout in the long run;
8) The noticeably high turnout in Beauchief ward in 1990-1991-1992 reflects how the Lib Dems were specifically targeting it from the Tories. However, in many cases turnout bears no relation to how competitive an area is (such as the Sheffield Central constituency having the same turnout bracket in 2010 and 2015 despite going from an ultra-marginal to a safe Labour seat).
1) As with the European elections, my turnout scale does not really go low enough for the late 1990s, where it does not distinguish between wards on 29% and wards on 15% (and yes, there were a few that fell that low);
2) The rich-poor turnout divide has existed since at least 1980, but it has gone through a few changes. It used to be much less pronounced at general elections than local elections, whereas now it seems to be more or less the same factor either way;
3) The divide is visible even in the face of the much more dramatic turnout differential from whether a local election is synchronised with the general or not;
4) I wonder if 2011's above average turnout was specifically driven by the AV referendum or not (which had an average nationwide turnout of 42.2%, a bit above a usual local election turnout);
5) The low turnout in 1992 was presumably because it was a month after the 1992 general election and Labour supporters were demoralised--on the results maps I made before, this was visible in the pie chart showing a huge drop in the Labour popular vote, even though FPTP meant this had little effect on the actual result;
6) Whereas the 1987 local election, held a month before, seems to reflect a higher than average turnout;
7) Postal voting made a big difference when first introduced but little impact on overall turnout in the long run;
8) The noticeably high turnout in Beauchief ward in 1990-1991-1992 reflects how the Lib Dems were specifically targeting it from the Tories. However, in many cases turnout bears no relation to how competitive an area is (such as the Sheffield Central constituency having the same turnout bracket in 2010 and 2015 despite going from an ultra-marginal to a safe Labour seat).
Thande
Donor
Well, a point I like to make is that local election turnouts have never been that high: they were about the same in the 1930s as they are now. Sheffield's lowest overall local turnout isn't even shown here, it was in the 1960s (I forget exactly which year). Yes, in the 1960s, where general elections had a turnout of over 75%, there was a local election in Sheffield with a turnout lower than the 1990s (I think it was 18%).
What has changed is that general turnout has fallen (and then started to recover), and that income and class turnout inequality has intensified--after posting the above I found a PDF of a study done after 2010 which shows how the classes have diverged in the general turnout. Judging by the data I've mapped though, if Sheffield is typical then the inequality has historically been more pronounced in local elections than general ones--but this is no longer the case.
I would suggest this is a consequence of turnout of all groups falling in the late 1990s, then the richer groups' turnout recovering (so the overall turnout has increased again) but the poorer groups' turnout has remained low. The graph below from the above pdf implies however that it's even more pronounced than that, with the poorest have actually fallen further from 2005 to 2010 as well. I haven't seen like-for-like data from 2015 but I did see a study which suggested the turnout of the lowest socioeconomic group had remained more or less constant from 2010 to 2015. The graph doesn't have data for 2001 unfortunately which is arguably the most crucial election from the POV of 'fall then recover'.
Alex Richards
Donor
I think I might eventually try to do something similar for the old Long Eaton UDC once I've got all the results typed up and mapped. There's a fascinating situation with the first contest where '3 parts of the constituency had not gone to the poll' (presumably a 25% turnout then). Turnout appears to have increased from that point, fell a bit in the 1900s, but was up to 70-80% in 1913. I've got very patchy and vague turnout results before that point, but afterwards the Long Eaton Advertiser got a lot better at recording turnout. Nottingham Road was down to the mid 50s by the 1920s, and Sawley Road appears to have been terrible at getting the vote out - they were down to 46% in 1923. By 1932 Nottingham road had dropped as far as 38% and New Sawley were leading the group as the only ward where a slim majority of the electorate voted- not even the Superannuation crisis of 1935 when pretty much the entire slate of councillors was voted out over the council's decision to significantly increase rates was enough to get people out, turnout actually dropped by 5% in Nottingham Road ward. 1936 is the first one I can find where turnout fell below 40% for most of the council, and the paper gets a lot spottier on recording these turnouts at this point- the first elections after WWII seem to have had a slight bump upwards, but by that point even the paper had given up complaining about the fall in interest. Things were back up to the mid-40s by 56 though, before dropping again in the 60s and the first elections to the new wards for Erewash Council in 1973 were solidly in the 30s.
Interestingly enough I think the Rich/Poor turnout trends are visible from surprisingly early on. Nottingham Road was the area next to the railway tracks- much poorer, heavily industrial etc.- and was the first ward to drop below 40%, even getting down to 29% in the 60s. By contrast New Sawley (roughly corresponding to Wilsthorpe, Sawley and a large part of Derby Road West today) was semi-urban and much wealthier, and remained above 50% turnout for the longest.
Interestingly enough I think the Rich/Poor turnout trends are visible from surprisingly early on. Nottingham Road was the area next to the railway tracks- much poorer, heavily industrial etc.- and was the first ward to drop below 40%, even getting down to 29% in the 60s. By contrast New Sawley (roughly corresponding to Wilsthorpe, Sawley and a large part of Derby Road West today) was semi-urban and much wealthier, and remained above 50% turnout for the longest.
Thande
Donor
Very interesting. So that supports what I suggested above--that the rich-poor divide has always been pronounced in local elections but that carrying over to general elections (to any great extent) is a modern phenomenon.
I suppose that does make sense considering (I believe) that more democracy in local government has pretty much always been something imposed from above by the establishment thinking it'd be a jolly good idea, rather than anything demanded by the people.
Thande
Donor
Anyway, back to updating the East of England elections-in-thirds councils...
Great Yarmouth was a place where UKIP did very well in 2014 but this fact wasn't talked about as much compared to some other places, so Alex and I were suggesting it was a place where they could potentially do well in 2015 and maybe even gain the parliamentary seat. As it turns out, this was another big disappointment for UKIP (maybe nobody reminded them how well they'd done, either)
They came third in the parliamentary election behind Labour and failed to win a single ward in the council election, though they were second nearly everywhere and often a close second. The map looks very similar to the last time these seats were contested in 2011, but that belies huge changes to the popular voteshares...
Con Lab UKIP Lib Dem Others Green
2011: 51.4% 42.3% 3.2% 1.1% 1.4% 0.5%
2015: 36.3% 29.1% 28.7% 5.1% 0.9% 0.0%
This was one of the places where the Lib Dems have totally collapsed, no council candidates and their PPC lost their deposit. But they've never had that much presence here at the best of times. The Greens by contrast had a candidate everywhere, despite this not being the sort of place where one would expect them to do well (and indeed they only broke 15% in one ward).
The parliamentary seat is coterminous with the council area but annoyingly not all wards were contested so they're not perfectly comparable. However, very broadly it looks as though a lot of split ticket voters voted UKIP for the council and Conservative for Parliament, while their Green counterparts lent some support to Labour but as much, maybe more, to the Tories...not for the first time, I think I'm looking at a council where the Labour parliamentary and council vote are almost identical but the Tories benefited from split-ticket tactical voting to a much greater extent.
If UKIP hold together and Europe stays in the news, maybe they can make gains in 2016, but we shall have to see. This does seem like one of those places where Labour are in trouble--I mean they're not dead, they came second in the parliamentary contest and less than 1% UKIP for the council, but they're now so far behind the Tories it's hard to see them winning a seat that was Labour 1997-2010 (admittedly, its MP through those years did describe it as 'a natural Tory seat' but still).
Very good council website, I might add, with some nice turnout graphs--turnout here didn't vary that much, being 60-65% in most wards barring the obligatory one sub-50% ward and one super-70% ward.
Great Yarmouth was a place where UKIP did very well in 2014 but this fact wasn't talked about as much compared to some other places, so Alex and I were suggesting it was a place where they could potentially do well in 2015 and maybe even gain the parliamentary seat. As it turns out, this was another big disappointment for UKIP (maybe nobody reminded them how well they'd done, either)
They came third in the parliamentary election behind Labour and failed to win a single ward in the council election, though they were second nearly everywhere and often a close second. The map looks very similar to the last time these seats were contested in 2011, but that belies huge changes to the popular voteshares...Con Lab UKIP Lib Dem Others Green
2011: 51.4% 42.3% 3.2% 1.1% 1.4% 0.5%
2015: 36.3% 29.1% 28.7% 5.1% 0.9% 0.0%
This was one of the places where the Lib Dems have totally collapsed, no council candidates and their PPC lost their deposit. But they've never had that much presence here at the best of times. The Greens by contrast had a candidate everywhere, despite this not being the sort of place where one would expect them to do well (and indeed they only broke 15% in one ward).
The parliamentary seat is coterminous with the council area but annoyingly not all wards were contested so they're not perfectly comparable. However, very broadly it looks as though a lot of split ticket voters voted UKIP for the council and Conservative for Parliament, while their Green counterparts lent some support to Labour but as much, maybe more, to the Tories...not for the first time, I think I'm looking at a council where the Labour parliamentary and council vote are almost identical but the Tories benefited from split-ticket tactical voting to a much greater extent.
If UKIP hold together and Europe stays in the news, maybe they can make gains in 2016, but we shall have to see. This does seem like one of those places where Labour are in trouble--I mean they're not dead, they came second in the parliamentary contest and less than 1% UKIP for the council, but they're now so far behind the Tories it's hard to see them winning a seat that was Labour 1997-2010 (admittedly, its MP through those years did describe it as 'a natural Tory seat' but still).
Very good council website, I might add, with some nice turnout graphs--turnout here didn't vary that much, being 60-65% in most wards barring the obligatory one sub-50% ward and one super-70% ward.
Thande
Donor
And while we're on a roll let's update Peterborough too. This was a bit of a below-the-radar success for Labour, with Lisa Forbes considerably increasing Labour's support in the parliamentary contest (also helped by UKIP taking votes from Stewart Jackson's majority) and managed to cut it to less than 5%. Nationally Labour would probably do well to look at what her campaign did. This was reflected on the council level as well, with Labour taking a seat from the Conservatives. The UPLB independents and Continuity Liberal survived, while the Lib Dems--slightly more alive here than in Great Yarmouth, but only slightly--threw everything at Werrington South ward and came surprisingly close to winning it. I don't think this was off a by-election so I'm not sure where the votes came from. Their candidate also used the alternative 'Focus Team' ballot description, but he used the version that also includes 'Liberal Democrat'.
UKIP got four seats in 2014, didn't win any of those wards this time, but perversely managed to steal the spotlight by unseating the council leader almost by accident. I begin to see why Birmingham Labour is so scared of double vacancies...
UKIP got four seats in 2014, didn't win any of those wards this time, but perversely managed to steal the spotlight by unseating the council leader almost by accident. I begin to see why Birmingham Labour is so scared of double vacancies...
Okay, so Danish maps were promised, and here the first one is. This is the general election of 2011, the most recent one until last Thursday.
Denmark is probably the most "continental" of the Nordic countries, and this shows in their political system, which has several idiosyncracies that set it apart from Norway, Sweden and Finland.
Firstly, the electoral system is extremely complex and multifaceted, which OwenM has done as good a job as can be done of explaining in the PMQs thread. Crossposting:
A further idiosyncracy that ought to be mentioned is that Danish political parties have an official electoral designation (bogstavsbetegnelse), an abbreviation that's listed next to its name on ballot papers. This bears no direct relation to the party's name, and is based on relative party strengths in the Copenhagen City Council at the time of the system's adoption - the Social Democrats were biggest, so got A, the Radikale Venstre got B, the Conservatives got C, and so on. Parties are allowed to choose any unused letter to use as their designation upon registering, and can later choose to select a new letter - Venstre, for instance, moved from D to the more recognisable V in 1968.
The practical application of all of this means that Denmark tends to have one of the most porous party systems in the region, with many small parties winning representation, none usually reaching 30% of the vote, and the relative voteshares changing quite dramatically between election cycles. However, as in Norway and Sweden, the biggest party in Denmark has almost always been the Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterne or Socialdemokratiet, depending on mood and time of day), who governed the country for most of the period between 1945 and 1982, and again between 1993 and 2001. Traditionally, the Danish right was divided between Venstre (often translated as the "Liberal Party", but actually meaning "Left" - this may seem confusing, but is in reference to their position in the pre-social democracy party system), which was then an agrarian party similar to the Centre Parties elsewhere in the region and the Icelandic Progressives, and the Conservative People's Party (Konservative Folkeparti, the former Højre (Right) to counter Venstre), which has its base among the urban middle and upper classes. Of late, however, Venstre has become increasingly dominant over the Conservatives (you'll note that this is the exact opposite of what's happening elsewhere in the Nordic countries, where it tends to be the agrarians who bleed votes to the urban right), remaking themselves into a catch-all right-of-centre party not entirely dissimilar to the British Conservative Party. The Conservatives themselves, on the other hand, are gradually fading into irrelevance as their niche disappears.
Meanwhile, another group has been rising in the new millennium - the Danish People's Party (Dansk Folkeparti), a right-wing populist party that rose from the ashes of the neoliberal-populist Progress Party (Fremskridtspartiet) in the 1990s, and broke through in a major way in the 2001 elections. When Venstre leader Anders Fogh Rasmussen formed a minority government after said election, he chose to seek support from the DF rather than the political centre, and this led to the party gaining massive influence over government policy, with utterly horrifying consequences. But more on that later.
The party system was historically rounded out by the Radikale Venstre (officially translated as the "Social Liberal Party", but this is completely asinine, so I'm calling them the "Radical Liberal Party" instead), a centrist offshoot of Venstre formed after the introduction of PR made the need for a coalition between rural smallholders and urban liberals disappear. They've traditionally been staunchly centrist, cooperating with whichever bloc strikes the better deal with them (a very rare occurrence in the Nordic countries, outside agrarian parties at least), but are now usually counted among the political left.
The Danish Communist Party (Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti) was traditionally extremely small and ostracised, even more so since its right joined up with the Social Democratic left to form the Socialist People's Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti) in 1959. The latter group is still in existence, and now profiles itself as a green-left party, a move that has driven many of its more doctrinaire members back over to the Unity List (Enhedslisten - de rød-grønne - also sometimes referred to in English as the "Red-Green Alliance").
Last but not least, there's the Liberal Alliance, a classical liberal party formed out of whole cloth by Naser Khader and Anders Samuelsen, formerly members of the Radikale Venstre, and former Conservative Gitte Seeberg - all but Samuelsen have since left the party for one reason or another, but this doesn't seem to have stopped its continued success among the urban middle classes.
Of course, these are merely the mainland Danish parties. In addition to the 175 members elected in Denmark, the Folketing has two seats each reserved for the Faroe Islands and Greenland, autonomous former Danish colonies. These are somewhat comparable to the Northern Irish Westminster elections - they're generally unpredictable, have completely different party systems, and are marked by low turnout compared to that of the metropole. On the Faroes, the main parties are the Union Party (Sambandsflokkurinn), which is right-wing unionist and sits with Venstre in the Folketing, the Social Democrats (Javnaðarflokkurin - this literally means "Equality Party", but I'm using its Danish name for the translation), which is left-wing, waffles on the union and sits with the mainland Social Democrats, Republic (Tjóðveldi), which is left-wing nationalist and sits by itself, though tending to support the red block over the blue, and finally the People's Party (Fólkaflokkurinn) which is right-wing nationalist and sits with the Conservatives.
Greenland is significantly more autonomist and more left-wing, and was historically divided between Forward (Siumut), a social-democratic autonomist party, and Solidarity (Atassut), a centre-right unionist party supported mainly by ethnic Danes living in Greenland. Recently, however, the spectrum has shifted to the left quite considerably, and Solidarity's support having collapsed utterly, the position as Siumut's main challenger has been taken over by Inuit Ataqatigiit (the "Community of the People"), a hard-left, openly separatist party, which formed the government of Greenland between 2009 and 2013.
Now, you'll recall that the 2001 elections resulted in one of the most right-wing government constellations in Danish history, with Venstre and the Conservatives forming a minority coalition backed by the Danish People's Party. This governed the country for the following ten years, and Venstre's liberal economic agenda was achieved in exchange for massive immigration restrictions demanded by the Danish People's Party. This relative normalisation of the latter group resulted in a massive shift of the Overton window away from openness and humanism and toward nationalism and xenophobia - in 2015 it's perfectly common to see respectable newspapers running headlines like "Muslims Soon a Majority in God's Own Country" accompanied by a burning American flag, and a recent survey found that 13% of Danes would vote for a party to the right of the Danish People's Party if such an option existed. Meanwhile, political correctness and multiculturalism are increasingly viewed as an authoritarian ideology on par with communism or fascism - and what's most important of all, this posturing has spectacularly failed to halt the rise of the Danish People's Party, which continued to gain votes in every election until 2011.
The 2011 election, the first held since the financial collapse of 2008, resulted in a small shift away from that - the Danish People's Party lost seats for the first (and so far only) time in its history, whereas the Radikale Venstre and the Unity List - the two parties most favourable to open borders - gained significant chunks of votes. The upshot of all this was the return of the Social Democrats to government, with Stephen Kinnock's wife as Prime Minister.
Denmark is probably the most "continental" of the Nordic countries, and this shows in their political system, which has several idiosyncracies that set it apart from Norway, Sweden and Finland.
Firstly, the electoral system is extremely complex and multifaceted, which OwenM has done as good a job as can be done of explaining in the PMQs thread. Crossposting:
A further idiosyncracy that ought to be mentioned is that Danish political parties have an official electoral designation (bogstavsbetegnelse), an abbreviation that's listed next to its name on ballot papers. This bears no direct relation to the party's name, and is based on relative party strengths in the Copenhagen City Council at the time of the system's adoption - the Social Democrats were biggest, so got A, the Radikale Venstre got B, the Conservatives got C, and so on. Parties are allowed to choose any unused letter to use as their designation upon registering, and can later choose to select a new letter - Venstre, for instance, moved from D to the more recognisable V in 1968.
The practical application of all of this means that Denmark tends to have one of the most porous party systems in the region, with many small parties winning representation, none usually reaching 30% of the vote, and the relative voteshares changing quite dramatically between election cycles. However, as in Norway and Sweden, the biggest party in Denmark has almost always been the Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterne or Socialdemokratiet, depending on mood and time of day), who governed the country for most of the period between 1945 and 1982, and again between 1993 and 2001. Traditionally, the Danish right was divided between Venstre (often translated as the "Liberal Party", but actually meaning "Left" - this may seem confusing, but is in reference to their position in the pre-social democracy party system), which was then an agrarian party similar to the Centre Parties elsewhere in the region and the Icelandic Progressives, and the Conservative People's Party (Konservative Folkeparti, the former Højre (Right) to counter Venstre), which has its base among the urban middle and upper classes. Of late, however, Venstre has become increasingly dominant over the Conservatives (you'll note that this is the exact opposite of what's happening elsewhere in the Nordic countries, where it tends to be the agrarians who bleed votes to the urban right), remaking themselves into a catch-all right-of-centre party not entirely dissimilar to the British Conservative Party. The Conservatives themselves, on the other hand, are gradually fading into irrelevance as their niche disappears.
Meanwhile, another group has been rising in the new millennium - the Danish People's Party (Dansk Folkeparti), a right-wing populist party that rose from the ashes of the neoliberal-populist Progress Party (Fremskridtspartiet) in the 1990s, and broke through in a major way in the 2001 elections. When Venstre leader Anders Fogh Rasmussen formed a minority government after said election, he chose to seek support from the DF rather than the political centre, and this led to the party gaining massive influence over government policy, with utterly horrifying consequences. But more on that later.
The party system was historically rounded out by the Radikale Venstre (officially translated as the "Social Liberal Party", but this is completely asinine, so I'm calling them the "Radical Liberal Party" instead), a centrist offshoot of Venstre formed after the introduction of PR made the need for a coalition between rural smallholders and urban liberals disappear. They've traditionally been staunchly centrist, cooperating with whichever bloc strikes the better deal with them (a very rare occurrence in the Nordic countries, outside agrarian parties at least), but are now usually counted among the political left.
The Danish Communist Party (Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti) was traditionally extremely small and ostracised, even more so since its right joined up with the Social Democratic left to form the Socialist People's Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti) in 1959. The latter group is still in existence, and now profiles itself as a green-left party, a move that has driven many of its more doctrinaire members back over to the Unity List (Enhedslisten - de rød-grønne - also sometimes referred to in English as the "Red-Green Alliance").
Last but not least, there's the Liberal Alliance, a classical liberal party formed out of whole cloth by Naser Khader and Anders Samuelsen, formerly members of the Radikale Venstre, and former Conservative Gitte Seeberg - all but Samuelsen have since left the party for one reason or another, but this doesn't seem to have stopped its continued success among the urban middle classes.
Of course, these are merely the mainland Danish parties. In addition to the 175 members elected in Denmark, the Folketing has two seats each reserved for the Faroe Islands and Greenland, autonomous former Danish colonies. These are somewhat comparable to the Northern Irish Westminster elections - they're generally unpredictable, have completely different party systems, and are marked by low turnout compared to that of the metropole. On the Faroes, the main parties are the Union Party (Sambandsflokkurinn), which is right-wing unionist and sits with Venstre in the Folketing, the Social Democrats (Javnaðarflokkurin - this literally means "Equality Party", but I'm using its Danish name for the translation), which is left-wing, waffles on the union and sits with the mainland Social Democrats, Republic (Tjóðveldi), which is left-wing nationalist and sits by itself, though tending to support the red block over the blue, and finally the People's Party (Fólkaflokkurinn) which is right-wing nationalist and sits with the Conservatives.
Greenland is significantly more autonomist and more left-wing, and was historically divided between Forward (Siumut), a social-democratic autonomist party, and Solidarity (Atassut), a centre-right unionist party supported mainly by ethnic Danes living in Greenland. Recently, however, the spectrum has shifted to the left quite considerably, and Solidarity's support having collapsed utterly, the position as Siumut's main challenger has been taken over by Inuit Ataqatigiit (the "Community of the People"), a hard-left, openly separatist party, which formed the government of Greenland between 2009 and 2013.
Now, you'll recall that the 2001 elections resulted in one of the most right-wing government constellations in Danish history, with Venstre and the Conservatives forming a minority coalition backed by the Danish People's Party. This governed the country for the following ten years, and Venstre's liberal economic agenda was achieved in exchange for massive immigration restrictions demanded by the Danish People's Party. This relative normalisation of the latter group resulted in a massive shift of the Overton window away from openness and humanism and toward nationalism and xenophobia - in 2015 it's perfectly common to see respectable newspapers running headlines like "Muslims Soon a Majority in God's Own Country" accompanied by a burning American flag, and a recent survey found that 13% of Danes would vote for a party to the right of the Danish People's Party if such an option existed. Meanwhile, political correctness and multiculturalism are increasingly viewed as an authoritarian ideology on par with communism or fascism - and what's most important of all, this posturing has spectacularly failed to halt the rise of the Danish People's Party, which continued to gain votes in every election until 2011.
The 2011 election, the first held since the financial collapse of 2008, resulted in a small shift away from that - the Danish People's Party lost seats for the first (and so far only) time in its history, whereas the Radikale Venstre and the Unity List - the two parties most favourable to open borders - gained significant chunks of votes. The upshot of all this was the return of the Social Democrats to government, with Stephen Kinnock's wife as Prime Minister.
Thande
Donor
Very good work Ares.
So the Danish People's Party didn't top the polls anywhere in 2011... had they done so at any time before that, given they lost ground in 2011, or not?
Also weird to see a party like Radikale Venstre top the polls anywhere - I'm used to parties like them never topping the polls anywhere in PR systems, just getting a thinly spread support that equates to a decent number of seats nationwide.
So the Danish People's Party didn't top the polls anywhere in 2011... had they done so at any time before that, given they lost ground in 2011, or not?
Also weird to see a party like Radikale Venstre top the polls anywhere - I'm used to parties like them never topping the polls anywhere in PR systems, just getting a thinly spread support that equates to a decent number of seats nationwide.
Pretty limited resource but I wanted to make it. This is the Canadian election map based on most recent predictions by 308.com available here: http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html
Wrong thread. This thread is for OTL election results maps only, not projected maps.
More Council maps, now in Lancashire:
West Lancashire - stronger Labour performance than average sees 2 Labour gains from 2011
Chorley - Conservatives winning a number of wards here that in 2014 went Labour, but not much change from 2011.
South Ribble has new boundaries but the election has given only minor changes in the council's composition
Blackburn with Darwen - Labour take the ward that the Lib Dems won in 2011 but lose one to the conservatives
Rossendale - a good conservative showing here, wining a number of wards from 2011 that Labour had held.
No more maps from me this week, as I'm on a AT week (hence the short analysis as I want to post these up before I go this morning.
West Lancashire - stronger Labour performance than average sees 2 Labour gains from 2011
Chorley - Conservatives winning a number of wards here that in 2014 went Labour, but not much change from 2011.
South Ribble has new boundaries but the election has given only minor changes in the council's composition
Blackburn with Darwen - Labour take the ward that the Lib Dems won in 2011 but lose one to the conservatives
Rossendale - a good conservative showing here, wining a number of wards from 2011 that Labour had held.
No more maps from me this week, as I'm on a AT week (hence the short analysis as I want to post these up before I go this morning.
Thande
Donor
Broadly yes but that sort of thing can be useful for future comparisons with the actual result providing we don't get too many of them.
Excellent work!