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 5 9
  1. South West region:

    2015:
    Con: 1,319,994 (46.54%)
    Lab: 501,684 (17.69%)
    LD: 428,873 (15.12%)
    UKIP: 384,546 (13.56%)
    Greens: 168,130 (5.93%)
    Others: 33,013 (1.16%)
    TOTAL: 2,836,240

    2010:
    Con: 1,187,637 (42.82%)
    LD: 962,954 (34.72%)
    Lab: 426,910 (15.39%)
    UKIP: 123,975 (4.47%)
    Greens: 31,517 (1.14%)
    Other: 40,450 (1.46%)
    TOTAL: 2,773,443

    Changes:
    Con: +3.72%
    Lab: +2.30%
    LD: -19.60%
    UKIP: +9.09%
    Greens: +4.79%
    Others: -0.29%

    Swing, Lab to Con: 0.71%

  2. Do I sense some whinging that really labour should have won because of some voters failing to be registered.
    Or that there were missing votes who were young people who might have voted for labour in marginal seats and changed the result to labour.
    Grow up and accept labour lost and lost heavily. If it is good enough for the elderly to register and vote it is up to young voters to do so.

  3. On the basis of the first 210 English seats in alpha ethical order, the 2010 LibDem vote went

    40-45% to UkiP
    22-27% to Labour
    10-15% to Green
    10-18% to Conservatives

    However, it could have been indirect (I.e. LibDem voting Con or Lab, and Con or Lab voting UKIP. But the scale is just too big.

    Also there is a significant regional variation.

  4. Establishing a reasonable estimate of the overall total of people missing from the electoral register is relatively straightforward.

    It involves comparing official UK estimates of the adult population, excluding those from ineligible countries, with the total on the electoral register. UK population estimates are derived from the 2011 census but adjusted annually for births, deaths and international migration.

    What that doesn’t tell you is whether people on the register have been registered at the right address. Because a lot of names were left on the register by default in 2015, it wasn’t just the overall number on the register that suffered (falling by 1 million) but also the accuracy of the names left on.

    In 2016, full individual electoral registration is due to be rolled out in all of its glory, and a further 7 million people are expected to disappear at that point.

    I suspect that the electoral register in Zimbabwe will by then be more accurate than ours.

  5. @Millie
    ‘There was a slight trend to the Blues over the last week or so, and there was that Survation poll’

    Polls in the final days on the whole showed a shift to Labour.

  6. Regarding voter registration, there was plenty of publicity about it. Google even played it’s part by putting a reminder at the bottom of the Chrome browser with a link to register. I think 400,000 people registered on the deadline day thanks to the publicity.

    So those who failed to register come from three groups:

    1) Council tax evaders (presumably these people were poll tax evaders originally and haven’t paid local tax for decades and that’s more important to them than voting).

    2) Those who are don’t care enough about who is in govt to take five minutes to register just because they’ve moved house

    3) Russell Brand type followers who think they’re making a statement by not registering to vote. Note that Ed Miliband didn’t arrange his interview with Brand till after the voter registration closed for some bizarre reason, so the whole interview and endorsement by Brand was a waste of time given that Brand had previously told people not to vote.

    None of these groups would have voted Labour (or Tory or Green or whoever). The point is they don’t care enough to bother with the whole ritual of registering and voting. They take abstention to a whole new level.

  7. @Laszlo

    I think TOH did agree, but treated it as ‘last minute swingback’, which might be the same thing, but he can answer for himself.

    @ Graham

    You are right- in the very last few days, the polls were slightly more encouraging for Labour. Perhaps I should have said ‘the last ten days or so’.

    As Robin Hood persuasively explained, there was a long term movement to the Tories. The betting markets also followed/predicted this.

    I think the possibility of an SNP/Lab alliance did resonate with voters – subsequent comments by many have confirmed this. My point was that the tactical voting position was less clear this time in the murkiness of an anticipated hung parliament, and numerous small parties.

    Many declined to tactical vote – tactical voting appears to be down this time, but I suspect that those that did, plus ‘authentic’ ditherers, went strongly for the Tories. That might be down to ‘incumbency’, swingback, or leader appreciation. It was probably a combination of all these, but my personal view is that the defining imperative was to keep the SNP out of governing England and Wales.

    This might go some way to explaining why the polls were right in Scotland. They did not share the same imperative.

    The more I think about it, the more plausible this explanation becomes.

  8. @Millie – “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.”

    This is completely wrong I’m afraid. Taking the published eve of poll polls, the panel based polls didn’t shift at all. The telephone polls (those that still had Con lead >1%) all shifted dramatically to Labour – dramatically.

    The ICM poll is instructive. Election eve saw a sharp closing of the lead to bring Lab level, and the last 25% of the sample, published on election day, gave Lab a 1% lead.

    Survation and Comres also found that undecided voters who had made their minds up in the last 48hrs were breaking 60/40 for Labour.

    There is no other way to read the published election eve polls other than to say that they either predicted a static picture or a surge to Labour. Any other than this is starting to look like myth making.

    Its abundantly clear that the polls were wrong, and probably wrong for a very long time. In this, we are probably back to 1992, when for decades to come, many will talk of the mythical ‘swingback’, whereas in reality there was no point from which to swing back from in the first place.

  9. Millie, Laszlo

    Good morning all, off to the allotments this morning.

    I did not think the polls were that wrong, they got it bang on in Scotland and forecast Labours strong performance in London and Wales as well as the steep decline of the LibDems.

    I always thought there would be swing back/shy Tories who were not happy with “austerity” but would vote for the party they felt most likely to perform on the economy when actually in the polling booth. As I have said several times since the election I do not know how the polls can accurately forecast a swing that occurs that late.

  10. @Alec

    I bow to your superior knowledge of these matters.

    Back to the drawing board…

  11. Good Morning All; and it is a lovely day here too.
    I think that there is a swing back from when Labour had a double digit lead.

    ALEC: you are right, of course, that the very latest published polls, including Lord Ashcroft’s poll were indicating a late move to Lab. It is like 1992.

    John Cruddas makes a revealing distinction between lost core voters and aspirational voters, suggesting that so-called- core voters are not aspirational also.

  12. Two great quotes this morning :-

    “Len McCluskey and the Unite leadership are the type of people who could pick the wrong winner in a one-horse race”

    “He’s Ed Miliband with a Scouse accent.”

    These Labour leadership elections are Groundhog Day personified.

  13. It looks like Jim Murphy is trying to outdo Johann Lamont’s “branch office” jibe as the most damaging resignation statement.

  14. @Millie – please – don’t ascribe any superior knowledge to me – I’m just looking at the evidence and then guessing the rest, like everyone else on here.

    @Colin – it does look like Labour is in a mess. Perhaps the need some internal warfare to sort things out. This never happened in 2010, which surprised and pleased some people, but maybe it was needed to clear the decks.

    I have doubts over Andy B, who does seem to be the activists choice, rather than the swing voters options, but what do I know.

    One thing I would like to see is for Labour to bite the bullet and have a proper clear out of the union influence. It’s from a time past, and it serves as something of a millstone around their necks.

    Labour need to be able to attack Tories on funding arrangements and links to big business from a clear perspective, and being seen as too close to unions prevents that.

    I’m not anti union by any stretch, but Labour needs to represent a much wider electoral perspective than the unions.

  15. MRJONES

    Actually my point is that if a large number of people weren’t registered to vote that thought they were, and they were disproportionately groups that voted Lab, then that would explain some of the difference in the polls.

    At this point we don’t have enough evidence to say whether this is likely to be true or not, we just know that a lot of people weren’t registered compared to 2010 and despite large scale net migration in the intervening period.

    CANDY

    Just because people forget to register doesn’t automatically mean they fall into your categories, or that they didn’t want to vote.

    As I stated before, it would be interesting to see some in depth research on the effect of individual voter registration.

  16. @Candy

    For those who have well ordered lives and are engaged in politics, registering to vote under the new system is no more than an additional hassle. For everyone else, it’s something that will get put to one side and as likely as not be forgotten amongst 101 other competing priorities for your time.

    Denigrating the huge numbers who fell out of the system as council tax dodgers is scraping the barrel and frankly bizarre.

    Here’s the reality.

    Under the old system, the council sent a single form out, one person signed it or amended it by hand and sent it back in the prepaid envelope.

    Under the new system, the council wrote to all those registered under the old system, and relied on others unregistered to contact them of their own volition, if they even realised that they needed to do anything, which of many didn’t. There were all too predictable consequences. When the Electoral Commission finally woke up to the unfolding disaster of non-registration in early 2015 they changed their guidance so that many councils then sent a letter to all households listing who was registered. Many will have treated it as another piece of junk mail. If your name wasn’t on the list, and you didn’t have access to the internet, you had to first write to the council to ask for a registration form and then when it arrived you had to fill it out and send it back. And everyone in the house had to do this separately. Some will have responded, some won’t.

    Having access to the internet, I did register at my new address in February 2015, as did my wife and my son who is at university. Although note that we share one computer and if it had been me registering all three of us no-one would have been the wiser. As it was, it took us (might it have just been me?) 20 minutes to fill out separately three lengthy online forms, and would have been a lot longer if I hadn’t known where to look for my son’s NI card (unused in the bottom of a box with his exam certificates). Hassle. And then two weeks later a letter came back saying that my son’s registration hadn’t been accepted, goodness knows why since we’d been at the old address for 16 years. So another form for him to fill in by hand (or rather to sign when he was back from uni after his Dad had gone to the hassle of filling it out for him, searching out his passport and photocopying it. The local ERO told me that was not untypical, with about a quarter of applications made online failing for some reason.

    At our local university, the Students Union sent officers around campus, stopping students to ask them to register online there and then using a wireless PC. They found that the majority who tried couldn’t complete the application because they didn’t have a record of their NI number.

    So your “5 minutes to register” doesn’t really capture the reality of this disasterous new system. And I ask whether someone a bit less highly motivated than I would have really been that bothered. Perhaps 50% of people might be, at best.

    If it applied evenly, there would be less distortion of electoral outcomes. But those who this bureaucratic process would discourage are those who move frequently because they don’t have a settled home. So our system encourages selective passive disenfranchisement.

    Of course, these problems will have passed most of those reading this by, because you didn’t move house so your names will have been carried forward automatically onto the new register (if you returned the form from the previous year) even if you didn’t respond to the ERO this time. That’s another 7 million people.

    What is particularly concerning this election is that, despite a shrinking register, turnout rates fell this election. It suggests that many names which were carried forward were for people who were not there, so an even lower % of the eligible population is registered than it might seem.

    And our rapidly shrinking electoral register will be used in the next round of Boundary Commission reviews.

    I wonder whether the Zimbabwean ambassador is using electoral registration in the UK as a case study of how to “improve” electoral registration back home.

  17. Alec

    re net migration and voting. I agree that the figure could be larger but without or until a full census I’m not sure we’ll know just how many were eligible but failed to register.

  18. Phil Haines

    An excellent summary of the problems.

    Re the boundary review, it may have some strange effects.

    Particularly given that more people have been registered in Scottish constituencies, in contrast to people dropping off the register in England and Wales.

    Previous assumptions have been that the number of MP’s in Scotland would be reduced as part of the boundary changes in order to equalise the constituency sizes.

    However, could it actually lead to Scotland’s representation not being reduced by much, or if the Cons decide to stick to 650 seats and not reduce to 600, could it actually lead to Scotland having more seats?!

  19. Mike Smithson tweets, “29% tell YouGov that LAB likely to win next election – 44% unlikely”

    Given the accuracy of the polls at the GE, this can only be good news for Labour. :)

  20. Phil Haines

    Excellent description of bureaucratic procedures getting in the way of, rather than facilitating a worthwhile objective of an accurate electoral roll.

  21. On my calculations, with a 650 seat house the Scottish representation would have been reduced to 56 seats based on the size of the electorate in 2010 relative to the rest of the UK.

    Based on the 2015 electorate that changes back to 59 seats out of 650 (exactly what they have now).

    On 600 seats I make it that they would have had 52 under the 2010 electorate which would now be 54 seats based on the 2015 electorate.

  22. So at one stage Lab had a double digit lead over the Conservatives and in the end the Conservatives won with a 7% lead, but some people still refuse to believe swingback is a thing???

    Probably the same people who gloated that crossover (the point when Cons overtook Lab) hadn’t happened and wasn’t going to happen.

  23. There is a YouGov Times poll out but the link on the YouGov site fails for me. If anyone has the tables can you please post the link.

  24. Also London was one of the few areas to see an increase in the electorate so that should also marginally increase representation in London relative to the rest of the UK at the next boundary review. Maybe one extra MP.

  25. @Millie, @all

    “…As Robin Hood persuasively explained, there was a long term movement to the Tories. The betting markets also followed/predicted this…”

    Has anybody got any proof of that statement (about the predictive power of betting markets)? It’s wildly untrue when it comes to the probability of an overall majority[1] and I know the spread betting firms lost a lot of money on the election[2]. Can somebody point me to a source or graph or something that says the betting markets were predictive (total seats, most seats, something)

    * [1] Measured by betting odds the probability of NOM went up and up and the probability of Con overall majority went down. By the last day (from memory) the odds on Con overall majority were about 7/1 to 10/1: an implied majority of 1/8 to 1/11
    * [2] http://www.standard.co.uk/business/markets/confessions-from-the-city-the-spreadbetting-insider-on-a-hectic-election-10253062.html

  26. Seen 2 people now try and make a comparison to Zimbabwe, this is the complete opposite, the Zimbabwe register is full of people that shouldn’t be there and full of fraud, this new system reduces the fraud (though obviously not completely Phil Haines still got away with it)
    It can only be a good thing to remove names that shouldn’t be there.

    As for the effort, well looking at Zimbabwe if a man who has been dead for 20 years can still put in the effort to get up and vote for his great leader Mugabe I’m sure Lab voters can put in some effort to vote for their great leader Ed!

  27. @MitM – “So at one stage Lab had a double digit lead over the Conservatives and in the end the Conservatives won with a 7% lead, but some people still refuse to believe swingback is a thing???”

    Classic mistake.

    We know polls on 6/5/15 shown a dead heat, but Cons were actually 7% ahead.

    It’s therefore possible that at the time Lab had double digit leads, the actual lead was = (Current Poll Lead – 7).

    It might have been even bigger differential, or possibly smaller, or maybe no differential at all, or possible favouring Labour. Any of these options are possible, although most people would probably now agree that the most likely scenario was that a systematic bias arose after 2010, so that polls have consistently overstated Lab relative to Con.

    Given that, it would seem likely that some swingback did occur, but that this may well have been very minor, and quite possibly within MoE had the polls been correct in the first place.

    What you have done is compare two (effectively) unrelated samples – one, a basket of polls that are proven now to be unreliable, and the other a factual statement of VI taken on one day only.

    This doesn’t mean you are necessarily wrong, but it does mean you can’t cite this as reliable evidence.

  28. Alec are you seriously suggesting the Conservatives were ahead by 7% for the whole time?

    Even if the polls have been wrong for some time, perhaps all the time, it’s fairly safe to assume that those double digit Labour leads were actual Lab leads (even if not as big in reality)

    Ironically when people were deriding Crosby and the concept of Crossover and how it would not happpen, it quite likely had already happened!

  29. @Martyn

    The betting markets certainly strongly favoured the Tories over Labour, and were offering much better odds on a Labour majority than a Tory one, even when Labour were marginally ahead in the polls.

    There was much discussion on this on this site. The explanation was generally that more Tories were punting larger sums.

    @ Phil H

    A superb account of the registration issue. The public sector always underestimates the reluctance of ordinary people to fill in forms, etc. and always over-estimates their capacity and willingness to use computers.

    At the end of the day when faced with twenty minutes of hassle and the right to vote in a non-marginal and be one of many millions, and therefore extraordinarily unlikely to influence the outcome, why bother?

  30. Jim Murphy seems a nice bloke, but doesn’t he go on & on & on & on & on…

  31. Good morning all from a blustery and chilly Giffnock.

    Swingback switchback quarterback, whatever you want to call it is all very well but the truth of the matter is the that the don’t knows/would not say disproportionality went over to the Tories.

    The same happened in the Scots indy ref and the polls could not pick up who the DK would go for.

  32. RICH
    Jim Murphy seems a nice bloke, but doesn’t he go on & on & on & on & on…
    ___________

    Have you been watching Father Ted?

    Cup of tea Father? Go on go on go on go on……;-)

  33. @Millie

    Thank you for your answer. I’m happy to accept your answer for the period, say, March-May 2015, but for the period 2010-2015 the fine phenomena you report was (i think) swamped by the gross movement.

    Tangentially, your answer illustrates a thing that has me baying at the moon in frustration: namely, using the words “accuracy of the polls” to mean “accuracy of the lead of Lab vs Con (or vice versa)”. I may *have* to accept that your usage is the commonly accepted one, but it isn’t the one the pollsters use: they use mean absolute error. This difference crops up daily, and I’ve bitten my lip into a ragged fringe…:-(

  34. MiM

    “Ironically when people were deriding Crosby and the concept of Crossover and how it would not happpen, it quite likely had already happened!”

    We don’t know that though, do we? For example, TOH has the view that it was only in the polling booth itself that people had their epiphany.

    There are so many things we don’t know for sure about what happened and why the polls were so wrong. You could be right, equally Alec could be right, equally TOH could be right.

    Perhaps we should have an Opinion Poll on what people think happened….

  35. Clearly, a dirty Tory trick disenfranchised 1.5 million voters. Therefore the lesson we should learn is that Labour are the moral winners and the people and policies offered by them, are real electoral winners.
    Lets carry on doing the same things and saying the same things.

  36. @Norbold
    “Mike Smithson tweets, “29% tell YouGov that LAB likely to win next election – 44% unlikely”
    Given the accuracy of the polls at the GE, this can only be good news for Labour. :)”

    The odd thing is people by a margin of over 20% think the economy is going well, but by a margin of 10% expect their own financial situation to get worse over the next 12 months. Curious.

    Also, the YG poll finds that people in Midlands/Wales and Scotland are more supportive of Kevin Pietersen than anyone else.

  37. Crosby; this methodist farm boy from Digga-Dogga has been reviled on this site, more than a Gestapo general. And yet it seems to me, he is a very brilliant man who was yet again, right on the money.

  38. Note to YouGov and you’re biased ridiculous questions

    Abolishing Barnett would not lead to lower Scottish public spending, Scotland would have FFA if Barnett was abolished and would make all decisions on tax spend and borrowing.

  39. ROLANDGATINOISE

    I am finding it enlightening that some people are posting comments which seem to suggest they are in favour of disenfranchising voters. Apparently because they are either a) lazy or b) Lab voters. Nothing to suggest either is true without more evidence.

    Democratically speaking, surely we can all agree that we want a system that is resilient to fraud but that also includes as many people from the eligible population as possible.

    If there is concern that the current system isn’t doing that then that would be a worry, wouldn’t it?

  40. @GARY O
    I am most definitely not in favour of excluding voters. However, I am very much in favour of Labour supporters kidding themselves about all manner of things, rather than face the truth. Because as we all know, truth is a construct of the bourgeoisie.
    Also, as any serious campaigner has found over many years, there are very large numbers of people in the UK who have no interest in voting.

  41. Gary O

    If they can’t be bothered to fill in a simple form from their bed they probably can’t be bothered to actually get up and go for a walk/drive and vote

    The system cuts fraud and still provides an easy way for anyone wanting to register to do so with plenty of publicity regarding such.

    I think Labour are kidding themselves if they are really saying “it would have been all so different under the old system”

    I don’t think it made a difference to a single seat. Even the seats with the smallest of margins 80 or so, what are the chances of finding that number of people in that 1 constituency who all wanted to vote on polling day but couldn’t and unanimously wanted to vote Labour.

  42. Well we now know who labours shadow chacellor will be under Burnham as he revealed on Marr that Rachel Reeves is backing him.

    Yvette Cooper said by helen lewis not to be up for it now that Ed B lost his seat.

    Looks like chuka is finished at westminster .

    With young liz showing her inexperience its pretty much all over bar the shouting.

  43. ROLANDGATINOISE

    So, ignoring the partisan Labour baiting passage… (not entirely in line with the comments policy I think)

    “Also, as any serious campaigner has found over many years, there are very large numbers of people in the UK who have no interest in voting.”

    I agree – but surely we shouldn’t be making it harder / more taxing for them to register, and as Phil Haines has pointed out in detail, the new individual voter registration does just that.

  44. @Gary o
    Whatever.

  45. I think that there are already hints in the yougov poll in the Sunday Times, that the panel may have a few people who have been economical with the truth regarding their 2015 vote. This probably only represents 2% or 3% of the panel but that could represent a fairly large error when we get to VI polls.

  46. Gary O

    That’s like saying Manchester United should grant me a free season ticket on the off chance that I develop an interest in football which I’ve not had for the past 21 years.

    As for those saying the form was too hard or confusing, if they can’t put down their name address and national insurance number how would the poor lambs cope with the mental gymnastics of actually voting itself.

    FIrst you have to talk to the clerk, tell them the as mentioned name and address you struggle with, then take the card over to the booth pick up the pencil and mark an x in the box, to top it off you have to make sure the x goes in the correct box, and then fold it and put it in the ballot box. The whole thing sounds like a new edition of University Challenge!

    Much easier if Labour could just tell the returning officer in each seat how many votes they think they should get, that way everyone gets counted!

  47. It’s all shaping up for Burnham, but can’t help thinking that the tag of the Unions pick will be the electoral kiss of death. Anybody else think this?

  48. Rich

    Not only that but does Labour really want to pick a man who came 4th (out of 5) to Ed Milliband??? He couldn’t even beat Ed Balls!!!

  49. RICH

    Yes. However, Burnham is not just Unites choice, he is the Tory choice as was Ed. Looks like Wallace will be replaced by Frank Sidebottom.

1 2 3 4 5 9