A few people have asked me if I know where there is a spreadsheet of the general election results available so they can crunch the numbers and explore results themselves. Until now I’ve been using results scraped off the BBC website, but the British Election Study team have now released a data set of the election results for download here.


420 Responses to “Spreadsheet of the General Election Results”

1 2 3 4 9
  1. Dai
    I onl;y went on to quickly lay her (in betting terms!) before the odds changed. I was gutted!

  2. @Daibach

    Oona is still only 50/1 for Mayor of London, let alone Labour leader. I think you’ve been misled.

  3. Gary O
    You don’t need a polling card to vote, so long as you’re registered.

  4. Couper2802

    Indeed – I think that’s something that polling companies should definitely look at. Maybe the polls were more right than they looked at gauging opinion but they didn’t accurately gauge which people had been registered.

    My own parents thought they were registered so if they had been polled they would have said they were definite voters, even though they couldn’t vote.

  5. Swingback is possible but if it happened surely it would have been picked up, to some extent at least, in the polls which were conducted very late. Apart from the one Survation poll that wasn’t published none did, including the polling day YouGov survey. If anything the last polls were more in favour of LAB than polls published a few days earlier.

  6. Pete B

    Yes I know that. But it was the fact that they hadn’t received one that made them realise that they’d forgot to register. When they checked they weren’t registered.

  7. @Gary O

    I’m not sure non-registration would have affected many who wanted to vote. I do, however, think the system is confusing. I suspect there were plenty who are on the register (registered under the old system as residents at a parent’s home) who thought they weren’t registered because of all the media talk about needing to register.

  8. Pete B

    If you strip Scotland out of those numbers they become:

    Con Lab
    2010 10,290,899 7,573,999
    2015 10,900,823 8,640,179

    Obviously the collapse of LiS and the loss of 40 seats is a huge issue for Labour, but in the rest of the UK Lab gained over one million votes. Not nearly enough to prevent a Con win, but far from a meltdown.

  9. Gary O
    I sympathise with your parents, but why were they more likely to forget individual registration than household registration?

  10. @ExileinYorks

    When you consider there were 6.8 million LD votes from 2010 to go round, about half of which were widely expected to go LAB until polling day I’m not sure that’s much to shout about.

  11. @Daibach

    I take it back. Oddly she’s 5/6 and drifting!

    Oona’s a Blairite. For a start she was very strongly pro the Iraq war. For those who want a so-called “minority” candidate, Oona is black, Jewish and a woman (the last is usually considered “minority” for some strange reason).

  12. Bizarre. I’m not registered with Oddschecker but have checked it on another device and it still comes up. To be clear, I don’t believe it either but it makes for an interesting flight of fantasy.

  13. Raf
    “…Oona is black, Jewish and a woman …”

    If she was a lesbian dwarf she’d have the full set! (Joke!)

  14. Eastern region:

    2015:
    Con: 1,445,946 (47.74%)
    Lab: 649,320 (21.44%)
    UKIP: 558,517 (18.44%)
    LD: 243,191 (8.03%)
    Greens: 116,274 (3.84%)
    Others: 15,374 (0.51%)
    TOTAL: 3,028,622

    2010:
    Con: 1,356,739 (47.12%)
    LD: 692,932 (24.07%)
    Lab: 564,581 (19.61%)
    UKIP: 123,237 (4.28%)
    Greens: 42,677 (1.48%)
    Others: 98,951 (3.44%)
    TOTAL: 2,879,117

    Changes:
    Con: +0.62%
    Lab: +1.83%
    UKIP: +14.16%
    LD: -16.04%
    Greens: +2.36%
    Others: -2.93%

    Swing, Con to Lab: 0.61%

  15. Exile in York
    A bad result, a very bad result. And one which the dodgy polls apart, was blindingly obvious with Labour’s leadership.

  16. Pete B

    Well the evidence suggests that at least 1.4 million did – and certainly we had a number of stories pre-election talking about the massive drop in the electoral register since the introduction of individual voter registration.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/18/electoral-register-changes-million-young-no-vote

    1.4 million would be the equivalent of around 3.5% vote share, so its not an insignificant number. Could easily have made the difference in some of the marginal constituencies in England.

  17. “You’re slow! I had all these calculated by Sunday last week….”

    I’m not slow, I just wanted to get some sleep after staying up all night on election night.

  18. Thanks RAF. For a minute I thought I was going mad!

  19. @Daibech @Raf

    Until very recently – or possibly still – Caroline Spelman always appeared as about sixth favourite for next Tory leader! Suspect its a fault in the system but makes for a good laugh… note also Tony Blair 50/1, the same price as several members of the current shadow cabinet!

  20. However, do not let me distract you from the fiasco. Just carry on thinking everything is great and next time will be Labour’s time.

  21. JOHN CHANIN:

    Did you post the regional results on any of the websites such as UKPR, VoteUK forum, PoliticalBetting? Because I certainly haven’t seen them on any of those.

  22. Pete B

    All those non existant/dead people being disenfranchised is still an outrage!

    Non-people are people too! Just wait and see, they’ll be taking to the streets!

  23. Exile in Yorks

    The less efficient vote distribution has harmed Lab. So they managed to do better in terms of vote share and vote numbers in England and Wales but get very little benefit for that.

    The Tories on the other hand suddenly picked up a lot of formerly Lib Dem seats where they previously piled up a lot of wasted votes, so their vote has become more efficiently spread.

    Will be interesting to see how this all changes with the new boundaries next time and whether the Lib Dem tactical voters that supported the Tories in the marginal seats this time stick with them at the next election.

  24. Gary O
    “Well the evidence suggests that at least 1.4 million did – and certainly we had a number of stories pre-election talking about the massive drop in the electoral register since the introduction of individual voter registration.”

    I still don’t see why one would be more likely to forget to register except certain cases such as students, whose Dad would have done it for them before (if they were old enough). I also think it likely that at least some of the ‘missing’ 1.4 million were previously fraudulent registrations. It would be very interesting if someone (Electoral Reform Society?) was able to do some proper research on this. I’d love to be proved wrong.

  25. “Re the previous point and the size of the electorate – net migration stats suggest that the electorate should have increased by over 1 million people since 2010.”

    What percentage of ex Lab voters stop voting rather than switch their vote to someone else?

  26. Gary O

    Another issue that may play out differently next time is the UKIP vote. It’s hard to be sure what the EU Ref will mean for UKIP, but if their bubble bursts will Lab benefit more than Con?

  27. Alan
    Lol! I bet all these non-existent voters are anti-fracking as well.

  28. Alan

    Are you suggesting that 1 million migrants have arrived and all died in the last 5 years?

    Or that the number of people reaching the franchise age was lower than the number of people that died?

    I assume then that the next census will show a significant drop in the UK population if that’s the case.

    As a site that discusses polls, and what may affect them, I’m suggesting that voter registration may have had an effect on the polls getting the result wrong.

    Now you may agree with a stricter method for registration or not, but it would be interesting to see some specific detailed research from the electoral commission and from polling companies to verify if it did make any difference.

  29. “net migration stats suggest that the electorate should have increased by over 1 million people since 2010”

    New migrants tend not to be interested in getting themselves on the electoral register, for obvious reasons: they’ve got more important priorities such as getting a job and finding somewhere to live, etc.

  30. Pete B

    I concur – we need some proper research but I think there are enough bare stats here to raise alarm bells.

  31. How many of the immigrants are qualified to be on the Westminster, as opposed to the Local, electoral roll?

    Aren’t there are as many Brits living in the EU as EU citizens in the UK?

    Just quoting “migrants” doesn’t seem adequate.

  32. Andy JS

    Well the 1 million figure is net migration for the past 5 years so the first 750,000 have been here more than 12 months.

    I think they have probably found a job and somewhere to live by now.

  33. Don’t forget that migration and immigration are two very different things.

    One class grants citizenship and all attendant rights, while the other does not !

  34. OLDNAT

    That is a fair point. I wonder how many EU citizens there are resident in the UK that couldn’t vote at the GE. I suspect its a lot.

  35. In the run up to the election I asked whether pollsters asked whether interviewees were registered to vote (or had already voted by post). I think it was Anthony who said that one of the pollsters (can’t remember which) did ask about registration. However, as they all called the election wrong it obviously didn’t make much difference.

  36. LASZLO

    In my constituency (in the North) canvassing showed quite a few ex libdems going to UKIP. I found it surprising to say the least (most pro-European party to most anti-European party) but it did happen. Seems they wanted neither of the two main parties but also, bizarrely, to vote for a party which wouldn’t be in government ( that’s my take on what I was told anyway).

  37. Apparently ONS estimates around 2.7million EU citizens don’t have the right to vote at a GE but do for locals / mayoral / Welsh assemby etc.

    Unfortunately we don’t know how that has changed in the last 5 years or how it’s been affected by recent net migration.

  38. Maura
    If you vote for a party that won’t be in government, you can always tell people “well I didn’t vote for them” when things inevitably go wrong.

  39. Pete B

    Asking whether people are registered still might not have been sufficient though if people didn’t know they weren’t registered due to the change to the new system.

  40. Thoughtful

    Immigration and emigration are simply subsets of migration (the movement of people from one place to another).

    By itself, migration confers no rights not already established by international treaties – eg all EU citizens are entitled to be on the Local Government electoral roll, but not that for the state legislature.

    Immigrants gain full rights by going through the process of being granted citizenship of their new state.

  41. Tory LGA warns Osborne not to cut local government any further.

  42. By the way, I’m not suggesting that voter registration issues would be the sole cause of the polls getting it so wrong.

    But it could have been one of a number of factors.

    – Poor weighting / sample size issue
    – Construction of the polling questions / survey
    – Online / Telephone methodologies used
    – Shy Tories lying
    – Late swingback composed of : (Lab – Con) Tactical Lib Dems trying to save coalition (LD to Con), UKIP squeeze (UKIP – Con)
    – inaccuracy in assessing eligibility or likelihood to vote

  43. Also worth noting that it’s pointless using net migration when thinking about voting.

    Ex pats Uk citizens have rights to vote in UK GE for (I think) 14 years after departure. Actual in migration levels were something like 630,000 in 2013 – far higher than the net migration figure. Depending on what voting rights these people may have or not have, the impact is potentially much greater than simply using the net migration figure as a starting point.

    It’s theoretically possible for the electorate to decrease, with net positive migration, depending on how many emigrants register overseas and how many immigrants have voting rights.

    As another unrelated point, of those 2013 total immigrants, the largest single group (47%) were from outwith the EU, with 41% from the EU. This further highlights the complete failure of Cameron’s net migration pledge, as he has total control over that 47% of immigrants, but presumably allowed them to come.

    For ease of reference, the missing group were returning UK citizens.

  44. Total votes cast were down slightly in the North East and West Midlands regions of the ones I’ve calculated so far. So much for a significant increase in turnout which some people were predicting before the election. A lot of people thought it might reach 70%.

  45. “Tory LGA warns Osborne not to cut local government any further.”

    Tory LGA pissing in the wind.

  46. Gary O

    Obviously stricter registration will have an effect on polling as it will cut out lots of voter fraud.

    On the wider point your argument that the addition of ex Lib voters and a million newly imported Lab voters since 2010 should have added up to a much more increased Lab total doesn’t take into account the possibility of ex Lab voters reducing the total – both those who switched their vote and those who stopped voting.

    so if it was something like
    +2 million Lib votes
    +1 million new votes
    – 2 million ex Lab votes
    = the roughly one million extra votes Lab increase their vote by compared to 2010

  47. Lab don’t want to admit to themselves that their 2010 vote went down cos then they have to think about why.

  48. I think Robin Hood and TOH might be right – perhaps the polls were not that wrong at all, and voting intentions simply changed in the last 24 hours or so. There was a slight trend to the Blues over the last week or so, and there was that Survation poll.

    It occurs to me that late decisions, or even changes of mind happen at every election, but they often/usually balance out/make no difference.

    This election was a bit different because firstly, it was looking like a hung parliament, and how it would pan out was unknown. So any tactical vote, normally not decided until late in the day, I suspect, was very difficult to make. Secondly, there were stronger performances by three ‘smaller’ parties, SNP, Green and UKIP, which confused things. Thirdly, there was the potency of the Tory suggestion that the SNP would ‘get into bed’ with Labour.

    In the corridor of uncertainty, to use a cricketing term, as one approached the polling booth, the Tories offered a clear outcome: they were not going to do a deal with the SNP, and they were not going to prop up anyone else in an unexpected way.

    All the rest were to varying degrees flirting with each other, and so ditherers and tactical voters were deterred.

    Ed M understood this, which is why he very quickly distanced himself from the SNP, but he couldn’t persuade everyone he meant it. The mud stuck.

    Meanwhile the Tories offered certainty in the corridor of uncertainty.

  49. @ Maura

    I’m using a rather intuitive method (I.e. it can’t be validated), and far from ready, but it could be that as much as 40% of 2010 LibDem voters voted for UKIP … Compare it to 25% to Labour. Once it’s all done, I will upload it and make it accessible.

    As I said, it can be that LibDems voted for Labour and Labour voters to UKIP, but I looked at past election votes, and it doesn’t seem to be right at this scale.

  50. @ Millie

    ToH did not advocate last minute change – just the opposite.

1 2 3 4 9