General Election 2021 Results Analysis

[Sheldon]

57 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

In fact good on them for highlighting the contribution these animals made in these conflicts.

If they hadn’t done it nobody else would

I'm all for more pictures of cute little horsey-worseys, provided it means less pictures of the Cretney clan.

As for "nobody else would" :- Isle of Man Post Office - Elegy to the War Horse

[Roger Mexico]

Back on subject (we've already got a Cretter's topic), the publishing of the electorates does mean we can compare the electorate to 2016, previously we only had the electoral roll figures from April and it was likely that these would change with the approach of the election.  This did prove to be the case with a nett extra 514 people added since then.  Every constituency showed an increase, except for Douglas North.  Presumably Ashford used health service powers to bump off anyone who wasn't going to vote for him.

This means we can compare like with like, the number of people who could vote in the 2021 election to the equivalent in 2016:

There's an overall increase of just under 8% and every constituency showed a growth of at least 4%.  The increase seems to be strongest in the towns, but it happens everywhere.

Now the numbers on the electoral roll should be a fairly good indicator of the number of adults on the Island.  There's no nationality restriction, there are votes at 16, and you only need to be resident for 12 months before you can vote.  We have one of the most open franchises in the world.  So an increase in the electorate of 4781 should indicate an increase in population of an equivalent amount - maybe 5000 allowing for children.  But only today a piece based on population projections by Paul Craine states:

In broader statistics for the whole island, the government population estimates for the end of September 2021 (third quarter) were provided by the government’s Economic Affairs Division in late October.

Mr Craine noted that the data suggests that the island’s resident population may have peaked in June this year at 84,829 before falling back to 84,746.

which at maximum is only 1515 more than the 2016 Census population, not 5000.  This discrepancy really needs explaining.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Roger Mexico
Add link

[John Wright]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Back on subject (we've already got a Cretter's topic), the publishing of the electorates does mean we can compare the electorate to 2016, previously we only had the electoral roll figures from April and it was likely that these would change with the approach of the election.  This did prove to be the case with a nett extra 514 people added since then.  Every constituency showed an increase, except for Douglas North.  Presumably Ashford used health service powers to bump off anyone who wasn't going to vote for him.

This means we can compare like with like, the number of people who could vote in the 2021 election to the equivalent in 2016:

There's an overall increase of just under 8% and every constituency showed a growth of at least 4%.  The increase seems to be strongest in the towns, but it happens everywhere.

Now the numbers on the electoral roll should be a fairly good indicator of the number of adults on the Island.  There's no nationality restriction, there are votes at 16, and you only need to be resident for 12 months before you can vote.  We have one of the most open franchises in the world.  So an increase in the electorate of 4781 should indicate an increase in population of an equivalent amount - maybe 5000 allowing for children.  But only today a piece based on population projections by Paul Craine states:

In broader statistics for the whole island, the government population estimates for the end of September 2021 (third quarter) were provided by the government’s Economic Affairs Division in late October.

Mr Craine noted that the data suggests that the island’s resident population may have peaked in June this year at 84,829 before falling back to 84,746.

which at maximum is only 1515 more than the 2016 Census population, not 5000.  This discrepancy really needs explaining.

The explanation is simple. It dates back to 2006. There was a wholesale cull of the registers. There was another before 2016. Numbers are climbing back up.

This crosses over to the vax stats where the eligible population (12 and over ) is stated to be 79,219. They claim they’ve filtered out most duplicates across cohorts.

I don’t believe we only have 5,500 aged birth to 11.

That also makes our vaccination rate understated?

[FookADoodleDoo]

Not a any of the newest of members of council were at the Councils Remembrance Day Service. One in particular didn’t even acknowledge the day on his social media platforms but could tripe on as usual about the Housing Market. I think it’s appalling. Even ex councillors were in attendance 

[Roger Mexico]

8 hours ago, John Wright said:

The explanation is simple. It dates back to 2006. There was a wholesale cull of the registers. There was another before 2016. Numbers are climbing back up.

This crosses over to the vax stats where the eligible population (12 and over ) is stated to be 79,219. They claim they’ve filtered out most duplicates across cohorts.

I don’t believe we only have 5,500 aged birth to 11.

That also makes our vaccination rate understated?

There was a purge back in 2015, but (after many complaints) the figures went back to previous levels a year later.  The numbers on the electoral roll have actually been rising steadily since at least 2017 (those figures don't go back before), though there is some variation across the year.  This may be linked to them having started with online registration (or at least confirmation) at that time.

I suspect that, rather than omitted persons gradually getting re-registered, they may either be getting better at picking up those in groups never registered or there may be more duplicates being left on the register (or both).  But the fact that despite the official turnout dropping, in actual fact about a thousand more people actually voted in 2021 might suggest an actual rise in population that the Cabinet Office is missing.

[Barlow]

5 hours ago, FookADoodleDoo said:

Not a any of the newest of members of council were at the Councils Remembrance Day Service. One in particular didn’t even acknowledge the day on his social media platforms but could tripe on as usual about the Housing Market. I think it’s appalling. Even ex councillors were in attendance 

You know, that doesn't surprise me. The Isle of Man will catch up with him some day.

[Lost Login]

7 hours ago, FookADoodleDoo said:

Not a any of the newest of members of council were at the Councils Remembrance Day Service. One in particular didn’t even acknowledge the day on his social media platforms but could tripe on as usual about the Housing Market. I think it’s appalling. Even ex councillors were in attendance 

Why is there a requirement to publicly show you are engaging in an act of remembrance let alone go to a special service which I presume is Christian based service giving thanks to God. 

Surely how you wish to acknowledge the day, or not, is down to a particular individual and was having freedom to make your own decisions etc one of the things that was fort for. 

[FookADoodleDoo]

5 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Why is there a requirement to publicly show you are engaging in an act of remembrance let alone go to a special service which I presume is Christian based service giving thanks to God. 

Surely how you wish to acknowledge the day, or not, is down to a particular individual and was having freedom to make your own decisions etc one of the things that was fort for. 

Out of principle…. Yes. Considering they are members of the council, they should be setting an example considering it is a council run event.  Whether the church was religion based or not, what harm would it have been to have gone to the promenade memorial or acknowledged the day in whichever shape or form. 

[Lost Login]

49 minutes ago, FookADoodleDoo said:

Out of principle…. Yes. Considering they are members of the council, they should be setting an example considering it is a council run event.  Whether the church was religion based or not, what harm would it have been to have gone to the promenade memorial or acknowledged the day in whichever shape or form. 

It would cause no harm to have done either, similarly it does no harm if anybody chose not to do either. It should be a matter of free choice.

I see no reason why a matter of principle a council member, or anybody, should have to attend a service or publicly acknowledge the day. If you are required to do it or are forced to do it out of duty then, in my view, the act starts to become a meaningless gesture. 

[SleepyJoe]

21 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Back on subject (we've already got a Cretter's topic), the publishing of the electorates does mean we can compare the electorate to 2016, previously we only had the electoral roll figures from April and it was likely that these would change with the approach of the election.  This did prove to be the case with a nett extra 514 people added since then.  Every constituency showed an increase, except for Douglas North.  Presumably Ashford used health service powers to bump off anyone who wasn't going to vote for him.

This means we can compare like with like, the number of people who could vote in the 2021 election to the equivalent in 2016:

There's an overall increase of just under 8% and every constituency showed a growth of at least 4%.  The increase seems to be strongest in the towns, but it happens everywhere.

Now the numbers on the electoral roll should be a fairly good indicator of the number of adults on the Island.  There's no nationality restriction, there are votes at 16, and you only need to be resident for 12 months before you can vote.  We have one of the most open franchises in the world.  So an increase in the electorate of 4781 should indicate an increase in population of an equivalent amount - maybe 5000 allowing for children.  But only today a piece based on population projections by Paul Craine states:

In broader statistics for the whole island, the government population estimates for the end of September 2021 (third quarter) were provided by the government’s Economic Affairs Division in late October.

Mr Craine noted that the data suggests that the island’s resident population may have peaked in June this year at 84,829 before falling back to 84,746.

which at maximum is only 1515 more than the 2016 Census population, not 5000.  This discrepancy really needs explaining.

Could you put a table of the actual voting numbers next to the one above Roger? I'm sure you have one

[Barlow]

16 hours ago, Lost Login said:

Why is there a requirement to publicly show you are engaging in an act of remembrance let alone go to a special service which I presume is Christian based service giving thanks to God. 

Surely how you wish to acknowledge the day, or not, is down to a particular individual and was having freedom to make your own decisions etc one of the things that was fort for. 

Fair enough, but that day of all days, politicians are there to represent people from our community. 
Any politician, big or small, who does not attend Armistice Day irrespective of their personal beliefs, needs to hang their head in shame and deserves to get their arse kicked out next election. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Barlow

[Lost Login]

34 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Fair enough, but that day of all days, politicians are there to represent people from our community. 
Any politician, big or small, who does not attend Armistice Day irrespective of their personal beliefs, needs to hang their head in shame and deserves to get their arse kicked out next election. 

Again I disagree. Suggesting that politicians should attend as they "there to represent people from our community" could be interpreted as meaning that they are required to go as our representative so we don't have to.  There is nothing stopping most people attending a remembrance service etc if they want to so why should they need representing.

Remembrance to me is a personal matter and how you wish you remember it, if at all, should generally be an individual's choice.  I appreciate that it is different if you are asked to attend say the Cenotaph in London and lay a wreath there on behalf of the Isle of Man as in that case your role is to represent the IoM. 

[Barlow]

Fair enough, although I don't agree with your interpretation of what I said.

Any politician who doesn't agree with attending an Armistice Parade should say publicly, although of course I suppose that is what they are doing by not attending. I am glad this subject has been raised and so maybe this thread could be rejuvenated come the next election.

[Declan]

13 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Fair enough, although I don't agree with your interpretation of what I said.

Any politician who doesn't agree with attending an Armistice Parade should say publicly, although of course I suppose that is what they are doing by not attending. I am glad this subject has been raised and so maybe this thread could be rejuvenated come the next election.

Is compulsory remembrance in the spirit of the event? 

[Barlow]

30 minutes ago, Declan said:

Is compulsory remembrance in the spirit of the event? 

As an elected representative of your community? I would suggest yes it is, certainly for anyone with an ounce of moral fibre and decency. But of course the word 'compulsory' can and will be construed into something very unpleasant. So aye, just do what one's own conscience tells you.

Maybe the woke types on this matter will one day get their way and there will be no one to attend Armistice Day parades.