Labour could need a 13% lead in 2020 to get a majority
This is news coming from the polling company Ipsis Mori who's data is showing that due to boundary changes / SNP and other factors Labour will need a huge lead to get a majority in 2020.
What do people think? Corbyn has this sorted right?
What do people think? Corbyn has this sorted right?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by skeptical_john
This is news coming from the polling company Ipsis Mori who's data is showing that due to boundary changes / SNP and other factors Labour will need a huge lead to get a majority in 2020.
What do people think? Corbyn has this sorted right?
What do people think? Corbyn has this sorted right?
It's astonishing that in an electoral system where the Tories could win 51% of the seats with 36% of the votes, they are telling us that the system is biased against them and demanding it be gerrymandered to favour them even more.
A week is a long-time in politics. Five years is an eternity. It's not electorally unthinkable that Labour could make up the gap. It's worth keeping in mind that the Tories have a majority of 12, not 120.
Labour has about 70 seats more than the Tories did after the 2001 election (the Tories had 166 seats to Labour's 413 after the 2001 election). And at the 2010 election, the Tories had 210 seats and Labour had 350. All the wailing and the gnashing of teeth about how Labour can't win until 2025 is guff and nonsense.
Even with the boundary review, Labour could take power with a similar swing and change of seats that the Tories achieved in 2010 (97 seats changing hands). It all depends whether the political stars align; remember the Tories will have been in power for 10 years (approximately the period of time when governments start to get tired) by 2020, and they will have lost their best electoral asset (David Cameron). I think if Labour puts up a serious contender like Dan Jarvis or Keir Starmer, the Tories are rooted
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SignFromDog
It's astonishing that in an electoral system where the Tories could win 51% of the seats with 36% of the votes, they are telling us that the system is biased against them and demanding it be gerrymandered to favour them even more.
A week is a long-time in politics. Five years is an eternity. It's not electorally unthinkable that Labour could make up the gap. It's worth keeping in mind that the Tories have a majority of 12, not 120.
Labour has about 70 seats more than the Tories did after the 2001 election (the Tories had 166 seats to Labour's 413 after the 2001 election). And at the 2010 election, the Tories had 210 seats and Labour had 350. All the wailing and the gnashing of teeth about how Labour can't win until 2025 is guff and nonsense.
Even with the boundary review, Labour could take power with a similar swing and change of seats that the Tories achieved in 2010 (97 seats changing hands). It all depends whether the political stars align; remember the Tories will have been in power for 10 years (approximately the period of time when governments start to get tired) by 2020, and they will have lost their best electoral asset (David Cameron). I think if Labour puts up a serious contender like Dan Jarvis or Keir Starmer, the Tories are rooted
A week is a long-time in politics. Five years is an eternity. It's not electorally unthinkable that Labour could make up the gap. It's worth keeping in mind that the Tories have a majority of 12, not 120.
Labour has about 70 seats more than the Tories did after the 2001 election (the Tories had 166 seats to Labour's 413 after the 2001 election). And at the 2010 election, the Tories had 210 seats and Labour had 350. All the wailing and the gnashing of teeth about how Labour can't win until 2025 is guff and nonsense.
Even with the boundary review, Labour could take power with a similar swing and change of seats that the Tories achieved in 2010 (97 seats changing hands). It all depends whether the political stars align; remember the Tories will have been in power for 10 years (approximately the period of time when governments start to get tired) by 2020, and they will have lost their best electoral asset (David Cameron). I think if Labour puts up a serious contender like Dan Jarvis or Keir Starmer, the Tories are rooted
The Tories say it's biased against them because they generally need more votes than Labour to achieve the same seats. In isolation their own performance looks good, but they're talking relative to Labour. Labour achieved a 40 odd majority in 2005 on 35% of the vote. Meanwhile in the last 2 elections the Tories have averaged 318 seats on 36%.
The key here is not to look at it as number of seats. Those seats are irrelevant once the boundary changes take place. For example a labour seat with 5% lead can turn tory under the changes. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, the only way you can change it is by being power.
It's not inconceivable that Labour could do enough to form some kind of coalition in 2020 but there would have to be some huge disaster mishandled by Cam for a Labour majority (no matter who was leading) some pundits are saying the tax credit cuts could be Osbourne's poll tax but we will see.
It's not inconceivable that Labour could do enough to form some kind of coalition in 2020 but there would have to be some huge disaster mishandled by Cam for a Labour majority (no matter who was leading) some pundits are saying the tax credit cuts could be Osbourne's poll tax but we will see.
Original post by pol pot noodles
The Tories say it's biased against them because they generally need more votes than Labour to achieve the same seats. In isolation their own performance looks good, but they're talking relative to Labour. Labour achieved a 40 odd majority in 2005 on 35% of the vote. Meanwhile in the last 2 elections the Tories have averaged 318 seats on 36%.
Yes. Scotland used to be the banker seats for Labour. 4% of the popular vote for 10% of seats. With that advantage gone they have a monumental task ahead of them.
Original post by pol pot noodles
The Tories say it's biased against them because they generally need more votes than Labour to achieve the same seats. In isolation their own performance looks good, but they're talking relative to Labour. Labour achieved a 40 odd majority in 2005 on 35% of the vote. Meanwhile in the last 2 elections the Tories have averaged 318 seats on 36%.
That is utter nonsense. Labour has done better in the past because their voters are better distributed. That is simply a function of the single-constituency system the Tories support. You can't support a single-constituency system that may favour one party over another (not due to any "unfairness" but because a putative advantage of the system is that you do require wide, not just deep, support in order to win government), and then claim it's unfair because it's less favourable to you due to inherent characteristics of the system you support.
In any case, you can't plausibly claim unfairness in relation to votes and seats won without then opening the door to the unfairness to voters of parties like UKIP. The Tories argument is illogical and incoherent, utterly self-serving and pretty objectionable given they can win a majority with 36% of the vote and yet UKIP won zero seats with 12.7% of the vote. You can't pick and choose the elements that you claim are unfair while ignoring the elements that disproportionately favour you without coming across as a dishonest hypocrite.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by skeptical_john
It's not inconceivable that Labour could do enough to form some kind of coalition in 2020 but there would have to be some huge disaster mishandled by Cam for a Labour majority
It's not inconceivable that Labour could do enough to form some kind of coalition in 2020 but there would have to be some huge disaster mishandled by Cam for a Labour majority
Not really. It's not inconceivable Labour could win power in its own right, given it wouldn't have to do much better than achieve the kind of swing the Tories did in 2010.
Original post by skeptical_john
The key here is not to look at it as number of seats. Those seats are irrelevant once the boundary changes take place. For example a labour seat with 5% lead can turn tory under the changes. Is that fair?
The Tories can win 51% of the seats with 36% of the votes. Under the same system, UKIP with 12.7% of the vote gets no seats. Is that fair? Apparently, the Tories say that despite it being hugely favourable to them, it's not favourable enough.
Self-serving guff.
Original post by SignFromDog
That is utter nonsense. Labour has done better in the past because their voters are better distributed. That is simply a function of the single-constituency system the Tories support. You can't support a single-constituency system that may favour one party over another, and then claim it's unfair because it's less favourable to you due to inherent characteristics of the system you support.
In any case, you can't plausibly claim unfairness in relation to votes and seats won without then opening the door to the unfairness to voters of parties like UKIP. The Tories argument is illogical and incoherent, utterly self-serving and pretty objectionable given they can win a majority with 36% of the vote and yet UKIP won zero seats with 12.7% of the vote. You can't pick and choose the elements that you claim are unfair while ignoring the elements that disproportionately favour you without coming across as a dishonest hypocrite.
In any case, you can't plausibly claim unfairness in relation to votes and seats won without then opening the door to the unfairness to voters of parties like UKIP. The Tories argument is illogical and incoherent, utterly self-serving and pretty objectionable given they can win a majority with 36% of the vote and yet UKIP won zero seats with 12.7% of the vote. You can't pick and choose the elements that you claim are unfair while ignoring the elements that disproportionately favour you without coming across as a dishonest hypocrite.
You've missed my point. The new boundaries won't be personally drawn by David Cameron. It just so happens that finally updating the boundaries will benefit the Tories now. They're within their rights to demand that the rules of constituency boundaries be adhered to. Not hypocritical in the slightest.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SignFromDog
It's astonishing that in an electoral system where the Tories could win 51% of the seats with 36% of the votes, they are telling us that the system is biased against them and demanding it be gerrymandered to favour them even more.
No, what's astonishing is that Labour took 54% of the seats with 35.2% of the vote in 2005. Wasn't much complaining then, eh?
I'm no Tory (bunch of Trotskyists and charlatans), but you are screaming injustice about a system Labour has been propping up for decades. You're sitting here complaining when The UK had a chance to vote for a more proportional system and overwhelmingly rejected the idea.
You're sitting here crying over spilled milk, when not only did Labour spill the milk, they bought the carton and poured it in the glass.
As someone who hates The Tories only marginally less than Labour, the system is biased in Labour's favour. Labour dominates the smallest constituencies in The UK. The proposed boundary changes are about equalising the size of constituencies across the board.
Take a look at some of the smallest constituencies in The UK - the population is about 30,000 in the smallest. If you take 3 of those constituencies, all of which are Labour controlled, you've got a population of 90,000 people and 3 MPs. Then, take the UK's largest constituency, the Isle of Wight, with a population of over 100,000 people. Despite having a larger population than the 3 smallest constituencies, they only return 1 MP. It's Tory controlled.
How is that fair? Newsflash: it isn't. The system is gerrymandered in Labour's favour and the minority is controlling the majority.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SignFromDog
remember the Tories will have been in power for 10 years (approximately the period of time when governments start to get tired) by 2020, and they will have lost their best electoral asset (David Cameron). I think if Labour puts up a serious contender like Dan Jarvis or Keir Starmer, the Tories are rooted
The Tories' best electoral asset won't be David Cameron at that point, it will be Boris Johnson, and as long as he is at the helm his party will not lose a single general election.
Original post by SignFromDog
Not really. It's not inconceivable Labour could win power in its own right, given it wouldn't have to do much better than achieve the kind of swing the Tories did in 2010.
That is factually incorrect. 2010 Lab - Con swing was 5%. Labour need a LEAD (assuming IPSIS data is accurate) of 13% thus a swing of 10%. ie something like 1997.
Original post by SignFromDog
The Tories can win 51% of the seats with 36% of the votes. Under the same system, UKIP with 12.7% of the vote gets no seats. Is that fair? Apparently, the Tories say that despite it being hugely favourable to them, it's not favourable enough.
Self-serving guff.
Self-serving guff.
Labour (at least pre corbyn) have always been in favour of FPTP it's unfair to say this is just the tories. The public had their vote in 2012 (i voted to change). The public thought it was fair.
If you think Boris Johnson will be leader of The Conservative Party come 2020 then you're absolutely deluded. It will be Osborne or, at a push, May. The former has been preparing for it all year, i.e., calling an early budget to play political spokesperson, and attending foreign summits.
Original post by SignFromDog
Not really. It's not inconceivable Labour could win power in its own right, given it wouldn't have to do much better than achieve the kind of swing the Tories did in 2010.
The seat swing in 2010 was the third largest since WW2 and required a global recession. Attlee holds the number 1 spot and required a war. Blair (number 2) required (some people say a tired government, i lean more towards those who say the Tory civil war killed them).
Since Corbyn needs the 4th largest seat swing in what will be 19 elections to rule alone, it's all well and good saying it's being done before but it's still statistically unlikely.
Perhaps the winds of change will blow behind Labour's backs and push them forward but as things stand today the Tories are still the favourate to hold power.
Labour still had a membership that wanted socialism back regardless of whether it would be electorally wise. The Tories might be more willing to put electoral credibility ahead of a true blue conviction man given that a lot of hard liners have already left for Ukip. You also won't be able to sign up for the leadership election at short notice.
Labour need to hurry up and elect a new leader if they want to have any chance of winning the next election. I wouldn't vote for Corbyn as some of his policies are worrying, and I'm normally a Labour voter.
That said the electoral system is a joke. The performance of UKIP and Lib Dems in the last election made that clear. Proportional representation would be much fairer. Or how about we all stop being retarded and put experts in charge of running the country rather than politicians.
That said the electoral system is a joke. The performance of UKIP and Lib Dems in the last election made that clear. Proportional representation would be much fairer. Or how about we all stop being retarded and put experts in charge of running the country rather than politicians.
I'm honestly not sure, partly because for all his weaknesses i consider Cameron better than all 3..
Osbourne - Ideologically i think he'd be great in that he's pragmatic and socially liberal while believing in a small state but not been nutty about it. I also think he's got the best grip on strategy of the 3 (northern powerhouse ect..) and is least likely to simply try sure up the vote. However, he's a Corbyn at public speaking. He can say the words, he has the training to emphasise ect.. but he lacks charisma and for non-Tories his austerity may have made him too toxic.
Boris - He's a populist which is neither good nor bad, just undesirable but despite being a blatant toff, he disarms people by being himself and is reasonably charismatic and good at public speaking. My concerns here are whether he has that much appeal outside traditional Tory seats and also that I've never seen evidence of strategy from him.
May - She's perceived as strong and effective and the media will paint her as Thatcher 2.0 which is actually a good thing when you look at polls of the public. She's reasonable enough at public speaking (little dry for my tastes but i think some people do like a serious politician who's not going to risk gaffes). My concern other than strategy is that she's ideologically a Kipper and i think the mean voter in England is a Blairite if you take welfare and immigration away. Of the three, she's most likely to lose votes i think.
I like Gove myself but if those 3 are running ahead when all nominations are in then i'll have to decide.
Osbourne - Ideologically i think he'd be great in that he's pragmatic and socially liberal while believing in a small state but not been nutty about it. I also think he's got the best grip on strategy of the 3 (northern powerhouse ect..) and is least likely to simply try sure up the vote. However, he's a Corbyn at public speaking. He can say the words, he has the training to emphasise ect.. but he lacks charisma and for non-Tories his austerity may have made him too toxic.
Boris - He's a populist which is neither good nor bad, just undesirable but despite being a blatant toff, he disarms people by being himself and is reasonably charismatic and good at public speaking. My concerns here are whether he has that much appeal outside traditional Tory seats and also that I've never seen evidence of strategy from him.
May - She's perceived as strong and effective and the media will paint her as Thatcher 2.0 which is actually a good thing when you look at polls of the public. She's reasonable enough at public speaking (little dry for my tastes but i think some people do like a serious politician who's not going to risk gaffes). My concern other than strategy is that she's ideologically a Kipper and i think the mean voter in England is a Blairite if you take welfare and immigration away. Of the three, she's most likely to lose votes i think.
I like Gove myself but if those 3 are running ahead when all nominations are in then i'll have to decide.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
So Labour took 54% of the seats with 35%. The Tories took 51% with 36%. That's pretty much within the kind of natural variation you get within a FPTP system.
I'm no Tory (bunch of Trotskyists and charlatans), but you are screaming injustice about a system Labour has been propping up for decades. You're sitting here complaining
You seem to be confused. It is the Tories who are complaining and saying the system must be changed. I am not seeking any change.
As someone who hates The Tories only marginally less than Labour
Maybe hating a political party contributes to your poor judgment?
Original post by pol pot noodles
You've missed my point. The new boundaries won't be personally drawn by David Cameron.
You may be confused about how the boundary changes work. The Conservatives used legislation to prescribe the boundary considerations the commission had to take into account. Specifically, they changed the way constituencies are drawn up from one where the commission does it based on population, to one where it's based on registered voters.
This means that there will be a significant redistribution of seats away from poorer areas, which will have seats taken away, to more affluent areas. That has nothing to do with the distribution of votes and everything to do with a transparently corrupt way of gerrymandering the political system in favour of population segments and geographical areas that favour the Conservatives.
Original post by a noble chance
The Tories' best electoral asset won't be David Cameron at that point, it will be Boris Johnson, and as long as he is at the helm his party will not lose a single general election.
Boris Johnson's bumbling toff act doesn't really play as well north of the Watford Gap. In fact, odds on that Johnson won't even become party leader; Osborne increasingly likely to run away with the main prize.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Help needed: Economics A-level question
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Should i vote Labour?
- What will A-level, GCSE and Vocational Qualifcations look like in 2023
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 3 (9ECO 03) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- How hard was A Level Mathematics?
- 2024 UK general election speculation and build-up thread
- Btec business unit 6 Principles of management exam 2024
- i suck at a-level economics
- AQA A Level Business Paper 1 (7132/1) - 23rd May 2023
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 1 - 7152/1 23 May 2023 [Exam chat]
- CIE A Level Economics
- economics essay
- Im really worried about my predicted grade
- Predictions for 2024 aqa alevel economics
Latest
Last reply 4 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 14 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadPosted 15 minutes ago
Failed 2 out of 3 exams semester 1 and scared about the 3 I have left in semester 2.Last reply 19 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2927
Last reply 34 minutes ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadLast reply 2 hours ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 17 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 20 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 17 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 20 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
