Right wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says Daily Mail article...

[jancrow]

Not forgetting the unacceptable face of Scottish Nationalism. Those kilts get shorter every year!

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The Tories have always had a solid base in deprived areas - think of a deprived area that doesn't have a Conservative club in it and I know I struggle. Which is not to say that these people even come from deprived areas at all - we're making assumptions based on their appearance.

I agree that they're more likely to be non-voters than anything, but Labour voters? Maybe some of their family had tribal affiliations a couple of decades back, but that's about it.

Of course people from deprived areas do vote Conservative, but hardly in droves. Look at this map of the 2010 elections:

As you can see the areas that are most deprived gravitate heavily towards Labour and the Lib Dems. Furthermore, I did bother to look at the picture location you posted, and extrapolated from the fact it is called 'EDL' that they are probably like most EDL supporters who voted Labour in in 97 and now feel let down.

Furthermore the studies on class and voting behaviour show a clear trend between the working classes and the Labour vote, and the salariat trend towards Conservative.
http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/papers/p83.pdf

The correlation is not as strong as it once was, but it is still very strong. Also, it might be handy to look at areas where the BNP has gained substantial support and even won council seats - these were previously Labour strongholds, and they have actually gone back to being Labour strong holds.

 

[Myshkin]

As you can see the areas that are most deprived gravitate heavily towards Labour and the Lib Dems.

But the map doesn't show any information on the socio-economic makeup of any given area, does it?

Granted, from that map it can be seen that Labour and the Lib Dems won more seats in densely-populated urban areas, but they include pockets of affluence as well as deprivation..

As for the link below it, then there's no arguing that the traditional links are still there, but to assume somebody votes Labour based on their appearance is a bit of a leap of the imagination.

Unless of course they're wearing a big red rosette, in which case you're probably right.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

But the map doesn't show any information on the socio-economic makeup of any given area, does it?

Granted, from that map it can be seen that Labour and the Lib Dems won more seats in densely-populated urban areas, but they include pockets of affluence as well as deprivation.

I already posted a link that showed my presumption of the way class would effect a voters decision was correct...

The pockets of affluence aren't big enough to swing the vote in urban areas, because the affluent are so highly out numbered. However, this interactive map (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2432632/UK-General-Election-2010-political-map.html) should show you the split in London - areas like Chelsea are Conservative whilst areas like Hackney are Labour. Also, you will probably notice that the Conservatives gained no seats in the top deprived areas of Britain. They have one seat in Scotland, from a wealthy and affluent area. 2 in Wales. None in Cornwall. Also in Luton, the main area of EDL activity, the vote has gone to Labour. And the pattern is the same for pretty much every single area they campaign in.

 

[Marmalade]

re BNP voting patterns

Psephologist John Curtice from Strathclyde University says the numbers give us unique insights into the European results that we would never get without them. "Suddenly, you can do things to get a clue about what might account for the result," he says. "If you compare share of the vote to the social character of an area you can begin to get some real understanding of a party's support."

The BNP, says Curtice, tends to pick up support in areas with small muslim populations and large white working class groups - they got over 19% in Barking, followed by similar support in Thurrock and Barnsley.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/13/elections-2009-european-elections


% by town

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

As for the link below it, then there's no arguing that the traditional links are still there, but to assume somebody votes Labour based on their appearance is a bit of a leap of the imagination.

Unless of course they're wearing a big red rosette, in which case you're probably right.

Yes because the Middle and Upper classes (typical Conservative voters) are known for their shaved heads, dressing in trackies, and waving English flags at every opportunity aren't they lol. Also, like I said, pretty much every area that the EDL operates in goes to Labour.

 

[Myshkin]

Also, like I said, pretty much every area that the EDL operates in goes to Labour.

But evidently it isn't the EDL members who are voting for them. At least going from the statistics I posted earlier, which quite clearly show the Tories as joint second preference among EDL types.

Can we at least accept that you were wrong about the people in the picture being more likely to vote Labour?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

re BNP voting patterns

Psephologist John Curtice from Strathclyde University says the numbers give us unique insights into the European results that we would never get without them. "Suddenly, you can do things to get a clue about what might account for the result," he says. "If you compare share of the vote to the social character of an area you can begin to get some real understanding of a party's support."

The BNP, says Curtice, tends to pick up support in areas with small muslim populations and large white working class groups - they got over 19% in Barking, followed by similar support in Thurrock and Barnsley.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/13/elections-2009-european-elections


% by town

This is very interesting. Let's look at the top 10 BNP areas:
Barking and Dagenham
Stoke-on-Trent
Thurrock
Barnsley
Rotherham
Havering
Burnley
North West Leicestershire
Bolsover
Ashfield

Now let's see who won those seats at the elections:
Barking and Dagenham - Labour (Strong margin)
Stoke-on-Trent - Labour (Strong margin)
Thurrock - Conservative (won by under 200 votes, previously a Lab area since 91)
Barnsley - Labour (Strong margin)
Rotherham - Labour (Strong)
Havering - Conservative (strong)
Burnley - Lib Dem (Weak, beat Labour by just over 1000)
North West Leicestershire - Conservative (Strong, previously under Labour since 91)
Bolsover - Labour (Strong, under Labour since it was formed in 1950)
Ashfield - Labour (Strong)

So it seems my position that the BNP steals votes in Labour dominated areas was entirely correct.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

But evidently it isn't the EDL members who are voting for them. At least going from the statistics I posted earlier, which quite clearly show the Tories as joint second preference among EDL types.

Can we at least accept that you were wrong about the people in the picture being more likely to vote Labour?

It is the EDL members who were voting for them. If they're disenfranchised enough to move to joining an extremist party, they are hardly going to keep on voting for the party they blame. If you look at the constituency they come from and live in, you can see the clear correlation. As shown above, the BNP's hot spots are almost exclusively Labour, which suggests that most of their votes come from previous Labour voters.

 

[Marmalade]

was for the euro elections. not sure if that has any bearing on straight UK voting. it may do.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

People are much more likely to chuck their vote in Euro elections I guess. Or use it as a way to express their discontent on the Euro issue.

 

[badandwicked]

As we all know stats & data can be interpreted to mean anything you want them to.

But regardless, can we please just do this

Can we at least accept that you were wrong about the people in the picture being more likely to vote Labour?

 

[Myshkin]

It is the EDL members who were voting for them.

No, the EDL members tend to live in areas traditionally dominated by Labour. There's a difference.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

As we all know stats & data can be interpreted to mean anything you want them to.

But regardless, can we please just do this

If conservative voters were more likely to vote for the BNP, be members of the EDL etc. then you have to wonder why Labour got an almost clean sweep in every constituency the BNP did well in. Indeed, you would expect them to do worse in those areas and better in Con areas. Feel free to interpret the data sets to show that I am wrong if it is so easy.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

No, the EDL members tend to live in areas traditionally dominated by Labour. There's a difference.

Like I said they are disenfranchised Labour voters. By the look of them as people and the area they come from it is a correct assumption that they would vote a) BNP or b) Labour. Do you have a data set to show who they voted for prior to joining the BNP/EDL? It is no surprise that in the last election when everyone said they were pissed off at Labour, that the most pissed off people showed a stronger preference for Conservatives. That doesn't change the fact that historically they would be Labour voters, and that almost all BNP/EDL supporters come directly from Labour. Just wait until the austerity measures kick in, and we'll see if they still claim to be conservative supporters.

Like I also said, if Con supporters were more likely to switch to a BNP vote then we would see the reverse of what the stats actually show.

 

[badandwicked]

If conservative voters were more likely to vote for the BNP, be members of the EDL etc. then you have to wonder why Labour got an almost clean sweep in every constituency the BNP did well in.

I don't agree. Quite clearly they vote one or the other which could indicate a strong disparity rather than a close link. Maybe BNP is the new conservative in that it used to be vote labour or tory, now its vote labour or BNP.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I don't agree. Quite clearly they vote one or the other which could indicate a strong disparity rather than a close link. Maybe BNP is the new conservative in that it used to be vote labour or tory, now its vote labour or BNP.

But in areas where the BNP do well, the Labour vote goes down and the Tory vote stays stable or increases. The BNP are taking votes directly out of Labours pocket, that's why Griffin contested Dagenham for parliament.

 

[badandwicked]

But if you're not incorperating turnout figures per party year on year to fully analyse the stats you can't say where the votes are coming from or going to.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

But if you're not incorperating turnout figures per party year on year to fully analyse the stats you can't say where the votes are coming from or going to.

If you take Dags as an example, you can clearly see that when the BNP does well the majority of the votes come from Labour. You can also see that historically it is Labour heartland. I would be dishonest if I said that none of the BNP gains came from the Conservative's, but that is quite easily explained by the fact that the Cons have historically been unable to take that seat - so the individual voters are probably switching preferences in order to stand a higher chance of getting someone they like in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barking_and_Dagenham_local_elections#By-election_results

 

[Myshkin]

By the look of them as people and the area they come from it is a correct assumption that they would vote a) BNP or b) Labour.

Good heavens! We'll gloss over that one for the sake of people's sanity, eh?

Do you have a data set to show who they voted for prior to joining the BNP/EDL?

No, and last time I checked, nor did you!