Borough election results: voting data & vote share analysis

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alison P on May 8, 2010 at 15:07

Thanks Hugh, very interesting.

Some thoughts looking at the three wards..

Turnout goes up in all three, because the local elections in 2006 weren’t on the same day as a general election.

If you look at share of the vote for Labour and Lib Dems in the three wards, there are clear differences. In Harringay, there is an astonishing lack of change at all in the Labour or Lib Dem share of the vote (both around 40%). Meanwhile in St Anns, Labour’s share of vote barely changes (around 50%), but the Lib Dems’ goes up to 25% from 15% (still nowhere large enough to win any seats). Also there is a big (and related?) fall in % voting for independent parties in St Ann’s, largely because the Respect party candidates aren’t there in 2010. Meanwhile, in Bounds Green, Labour’s share of vote goes up 5 points to 45%, and the Lib Dems’ comes down 5 points.

What does this all mean? For Harringay, it does strike me as incredible that, despite after all that campaigning effort by Labour and Lib Dems over the last month, there was hardly any difference between the 2006 and 2010 local election results in terms of their share of the vote, or the result. But then again you don’t know what would have happened without the work – maybe Labour’s efforts allowed them to hang on to one seat that they might otherwise have lost?

Was there a HOL effect? I can’t quite think that one through. Clearly there are differences between the numbers voting for the different candidates, which will reflect their local profiles, and HOL has been very important in that. But their profiles will reflect other things too – Gina A has been around for a long time and I imagine will inspire loyalty among some people who won’t ever have heard of HOL (plus her name appears first on the ballot paper…).

On the split ticket/voting down party lines, clearly a significant number of people do vote for one of the candidate from a particular party and not for the others. 185 more people voted for Gina A than for Nora M, for instance. I don't know how many voted for both, but when you bear in mind that David S got elected with only 13 more votes than Nora got, those who do vote along more than just party lines can make a real difference.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Admiral on May 8, 2010 at 17:11

Thanks for the data. Striking how except for Harringay the east-west split of the borough along the north-south railway line has been underlined by these results (i.e. no Labour councillors to the west and only the two Harringay LibDems to the east). Interesting to speculate what it says about ward. Its political affinity with Hornsey and Wood Green, despite being part of Tottenham, has a history - the greater part of the 'Ladder' formed part of the old Hornsey parliamentary constituency, held by the Tories from its creation in 1885 until it disappeared in 1983 (trivial fact - the seat was first represented by Sir James Macnaghten McGarel Hogg, the great-uncle of Lord Hailsham, Lord Chancellor in Mrs Thatcher's government).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark B on May 8, 2010 at 21:11

Awsome - thanks for this. Really interestesting.

A really nice piece in The Gruaniad today about this sort of effort. Well worth reading if only for the links. I am thinking here about Liz's tracking and documenting promises -> outcomes

Oh the article

The real political nerds by Ben Goldacre

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on May 8, 2010 at 21:28

Thanks Mark; good link.

And, yup accountability is the other half of my purpose in all this election coverage - voter choice & accountability.

Be fascinated to find out what you do for a living either online or off.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Admiral on May 8, 2010 at 22:20

Thanks Mark - the links are useful. It is fascinating how history seems to influence political behaviour despite social and demographic change - Tottenham hasn't elected a Tory since 1931.

Apart from history, the sociology of Harringay also differs a bit from the other 'spine' wards of Bounds Green and Noel Park - it is slightly whiter, more educated professional, and perhaps most importantly, has far fewer council tenants with many more residents who are owner occupiers or rent privately. It is also less socially deprived. In these respects it is a little more like Stroud Green which has also returned LibDem councillors(see http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/news_and_events/fact_file/wardprof...).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DavidJ on May 9, 2010 at 10:04

So the ward profiles suggest no great mystery. Harringay is quite a lot more 'middle class' than Noel Park (education, housing, occupation) and somewhat more than Bounds Green.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on May 9, 2010 at 21:07

Yes. I'm sure some of the changes reflect changing demographic profiles in the areas. I lived in Stroud Green in the 1990s and then it was entirely Labour. As was Harringay untl the 2006 elections.

I'm fairly sure that if you looked at council election results over the last 20 years you'd basically see a yellow Lib Dem tide sweeping across from west to east over time. I try not to think it is following me ..!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katey on May 9, 2010 at 11:23

...following on from Mark's link, I would highly recommend Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Science' for anyone interested in the misuse of data in society today - is a great read!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on May 9, 2010 at 18:13

Wouldn't it be funny if this was going on here?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/09/alfie-mckenzie-14-ye...

I know I had to take my little brother's name off when he went home but it looks like I could have just left it there and had a double dip.

• ▶ Reply