Labour could need a 13% lead in 2020 to get a majority

Watch
skeptical_john
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
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?
0
reply
SignFromDog
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
(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?
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
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(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
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%.
2
reply
skeptical_john
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
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.
0
reply
skeptical_john
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
(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.
1
reply
SignFromDog
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(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.
1
reply
SignFromDog
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(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
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.
0
reply
SignFromDog
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(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.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(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.
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.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(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.
2
reply
a noble chance
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(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.
1
reply
MaxReid
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
This doesn't surprise me. I do not think it possible that Labour will win another general election unless Scotland is independent at the moment. The SNP have annihilated Labour in Scotland and will make sure that Scottish Labour does not recover just as the Scottish Tories have not done since '97.
This is the key difference between 2015 and the defeats in '83, '87 and 1992. At least in 1987 Kinnock made gains in Scotland and they had rock solid, monolithically labour seats north of the border in 1992. The boundary reviews are a welcome prospect as they will abolish over-represented seats in cities and the north. Why should Wales have so many small Labour constituencies when the Tories have seats in the South with more than the average number of electors. Quite frankly, Labour only have themselves to blame for the position they find themselves in electorally.
0
reply
MaxReid
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(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.
I agree with you, Boris Johnson will be unbeatable in 2020 in the same way Tony Blair was in 2001.
1
reply
skeptical_john
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#14
(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.
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.
1
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by MaxReid)
I agree with you, Boris Johnson will be unbeatable in 2020 in the same way Tony Blair was in 2001.
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.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(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.
1
reply
MaxReid
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
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.
Considering Jeremy Corbyn essentially came from nowhere to win the leadership of the Labour Party, I wouldn't put too much faith in front runners to win it. I think Boris Johnson still has a chance as I don't give too much credence to the idea of front runners. I do think it'll be between George Osborne and Boris Johnson. Theresa May has no chance
0
reply
MaxReid
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Rakas21)
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 would basically have to gain 100 seats from the Conservatives in England. I live in target number 94, Milton Keynes North where the incumbent has a majority of nearly 10K, I can tell you for a fact that Jeremy Corbyn will not win in my neck of the woods. Labour victory in 2020 is near impossible.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by MaxReid)
Considering Jeremy Corbyn essentially came from nowhere to win the leadership of the Labour Party, I wouldn't put too much faith in front runners to win it. I think Boris Johnson still has a chance as I don't give too much credence to the idea of front runners. I do think it'll be between George Osborne and Boris Johnson. Theresa May has no chance
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.
0
reply
MaxReid
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Rakas21)
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.
Your first point is true. I think Boris Johnson is more electable than George Osborne as he is a more popular choice for leader with the general public. I think his chances were harmed by the Tory victory in May but as the leadership election is a while away I think it's still winnable for Johnson. No, I can't see the Tories using an open primary to decide their next leader either. I am a member of the party so will be able to vote in what will obviously be a closed primary.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (2)
4.26%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (7)
14.89%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (5)
10.64%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (4)
8.51%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (20)
42.55%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (9)
19.15%

Watched Threads

View All