When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
6,072
If the Tories were able to get such a major majority from 43% of the vote, who's to say they haven't been messing with the system to favour them.

That's not the system particularly favouring the Tories - it's the system boosting the largest parties. If anything, since the 1990s, the electoral system has favoured Labour much more than the Tories (which may be in part why Labour is so reluctant about PR). Consider that at the last election, the Tories were 11.4% ahead of Labour in vote share - very close to a mirror image of 1997 when Labour was 12.5% ahead of the Tories. In 1997, that 12.5% lead gave Labour a majority of 177, compared to the Tories' majority in 2019 of 'only' 80.

Of course some Tory fiddling with the system on the cards for the next election, although that's only likely to make a small difference in seats.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
11,539
Location
St Albans
That's not the system particularly favouring the Tories - it's the system boosting the largest parties. If anything, since the 1990s, the electoral system has favoured Labour much more than the Tories (which may be in part why Labour is so reluctant about PR). Consider that at the last election, the Tories were 11.4% ahead of Labour in vote share - very close to a mirror image of 1997 when Labour was 12.5% ahead of the Tories. In 1997, that 12.5% lead gave Labour a majority of 177, compared to the Tories' majority in 2019 of 'only' 80.

Of course some Tory fiddling with the system on the cards for the next election, although that's only likely to make a small difference in seats.
The relationship between the overall vote majority and any corresponding majority of seats delivered is not a linear one. It can be a cliff face once the middle ground is switched.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
6,072
The relationship between the overall vote majority and any corresponding majority of seats delivered is not a linear one. It can be a cliff face once the middle ground is switched.

No it's not linear. But if you look at all the elections since 1992, you'll see a pattern where a given % lead pretty much always translates into a bigger majority for Labour than it does for the Tories. Another - very dramatic - example is comparing 2005 with 2010. In 2005, a 2.8% Labour lead over the Tories produced a very large Labour majority of 62. In 2010, a much larger Tory lead of 7.1% actually produced a hung parliament.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
11,539
Location
St Albans
No it's not linear. But if you look at all the elections since 1992, you'll see a pattern where a given % lead pretty much always translates into a bigger majority for Labour than it does for the Tories. Another - very dramatic - example is comparing 2005 with 2010. In 2005, a 2.8% Labour lead over the Tories produced a very large Labour majority of 62. In 2010, a much larger Tory lead of 7.1% actually produced a hung parliament.
Well rather than discussing cherry picked examples, can you identify why in your opinion Labour always gets a bigger majority of seats for a given precentage voting lead?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
6,072
Well rather than discussing cherry picked examples, can you identify why in your opinion Labour always gets a bigger majority of seats for a given precentage voting lead?

Because I'm broadly familiar with the results for the the elections since WW2. Check them out - you can easily find them on wikipedia. It shouldn't take long to see that what I'm saying is correct (Certainly for elections since 1992 and to some extent since 1974. Prior to the 1970s the picture was different.

EDIT... Rather than asserting, I decided I should make the effort to show you the data (the data was easily available, but putting it into a visually obvious form was a bit more work). So, some fiddling in Excel... Here is a plot of the Commons majority against % vote share lead for every UK general election in the last 50 years. I think it's fairly obvious that the Labour are getting bigger majorities than the Tories for a given lead - in other words, the electoral system and the way votes are geographically distributed tends to favour Labour more than the Tories. The only exception - Oct 1974 - is nearly 50 years ago. Note that for Feb 1974, the Tories won the popular vote but Labour actually got more seats.

Electon-majorities.png



This is quite interesting (to me at least) and demonstrates it’s never as simple as more votes equals more seats. The Tory result in 2017 is very different to 2015 or 2019

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-turning-votes-into-seats/ this is the document that chart is taken from. Lots of interesting info in it

It's not the vote share that matters here. What primarily matters for this comparison is the % lead that the winning party has over the opposition. The reason the Tory result in 2017 was different is because their lead over Labour in 2017 was only 2.4%, compared to 11.5% in 2019 and 6.5% in 2015.
 
Last edited:

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,050
Location
University of Birmingham
Apparently Loughborough University Conservatives have had a vote, and by a supermajority their official stance is that Boris must resign. Is this a sign of change?
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
25,572
Location
UK
They should/will probably keep him until after the next wave of Brexit changes kick in at the start of 2022. A convenient/useful idiot.

I've already had many emails from small importers basically saying they can't guarantee they can afford to continue selling goods from the EU (especially when it comes to things like food) so while Amazon and other big firms will be fine, we're going to see more businesses suffer...

...Businesses that normally vote Conservative.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
1,832
Don't know whether it fits here but the Express re running a story on how UK trade has shrunk post Brexit but the EU's has increased following data from the Bank of England, something is clearly wrong when the Express are reporting on Brexit negatively, maybe it's all to stick nails in Johnson.


Daily Express said:
Since Brexit manifested early this year, the Government has attempted to reforge the many trade deals it held as an EU member. Liz Truss has helped establish several since January 1, setting off ambitious targets to cover 80 percent of UK trade with free trade agreements by 2022. But data from the Bank of England shows that, despite her efforts, the UK's trading prospects have shrunk.

On December 3, the Bank of England released data showing the UK's trading habits over the last 24 years.

The bank added imports and exports and exhibited these "trade flows" as a percentage of GDP per year for the UK and "EU Main Countries" since 1997.

The data shows at the turn of the millennium, the country was nearly on par with the rest of the bloc, as each reported trade worth between 50 and 60 percent of GDP.

A vast chasm opened after 2011 when the EU started growing at a much more exponential rate, and this became even more pronounced between 2019 and 2021.

When Britons voted for Brexit in 2016, the UK's trade flows sat at around 58 percent and the EU's at 72 percent.

British GDP from trade reached its highest since 2006 in 2019 when it hit around 62 percent.

At the same time, the EU maxed out at roughly 75 percent, its highest in recorded history.

Both suffered losses when the pandemic hit in 2020, but only one has recovered.

The UK has not seen its trade bounce back since the official exit date of January 2021.

According to the Bank of England data, trade as a percentage of GDP was around 54 percent, down from near 56 percent in 2020.

At the same time, the EU has increased its trade close to 2018 levels.

The bloc's trade made up roughly 73 percent of its GDP in 2021.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,812
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
The economy is in bad shape and is being reported as having grew by only 0.1% in October (before Covid-Omicron). This means fun and games as the successor to BoJo has to get his or her feet under the desk in a flatlining economy. Succeeding the Clown as prime minister sounds like a poisoned chalice to me on the back of that cold hard economic data, leaving aside the more wooly things like the hollowing out of government credibility of the predecessor - something Joe Biden has struggled with.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
11,539
Location
St Albans
Just blame the EU and Covid for the next ten years... job done!
Well, for a government that gained power on the promise of better times when the UK left the EU, that is political suicide. Those who fell for the lies tend to deny the failures of leaving. Blaming COVID for economic failure is pathetic when compared to the UK's competitors' better performances.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
2,874
They should/will probably keep him until after the next wave of Brexit changes kick in at the start of 2022. A convenient/useful idiot.
There's another wave of Brexit stuff? I thought all the Brexit stuff was done this time last year, didn't realise there were yet more (presumably) trade restrictions, etc, kicking in at new year. Keir Starmer could attack the Tories in so many other ways (Brexit, poverty, corruption etc) but seems to be focusing on Government restrictions not being hard enough. Not popular in the 'red wall' seats he wants back, I suspect, which will be more vulnerable than most to the economic consequences of lockdown. Politically naive if he wants power, but perhaps with 'Boris' fast becoming a joke, he might actually now be in with a chance if the presumed 'Boris' resignation happens and triggers an election.

Labour have the best chance they've had in a while to attack the government and perhaps even get in, but need to be a bit more balanced on their approach to restrictions. Backing a fourth lockdown (if it happens) will, in particular, ruin their chances I suspect, particularly if a post-'Boris' Tory candidate like Sunak takes a softer approach.
 
Last edited:

dosxuk

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,102
if the presumed 'Boris' resignation happens and triggers an election
A resignation by Boris won't trigger an election. The Tories would be mad to call one now, even if they do dispose of Boris.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
2,988
Location
Birmingham
They'll only call an early election if they are sure they'll win with a bigger majority, as it is they have plenty of time to hope things turn around.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
25,572
Location
UK
It isn't so much that there are new regulations @nw1 (even though papers are blaming the EU for imposing them next year) but rather that some things were deferred to allow the UK time to prepare.

I assume in the last year, we hired all the customs officers and border protection staff we said we would?
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
4,532
Location
Maidstone
Lib Dems are now 4/7 to win North Shropshire next week. We also now have 4 opinion polls that give Labour leads of 4-8 points, having been conducted in the aftermath of partygate.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,247
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Lib Dems are now 4/7 to win North Shropshire next week.
That is based on betting without any evidence that the LDs are best placed to beat the Tories there; they were in a poor 3rd place at the 2019 GE. Surely Labour is the party to vote for in North Shropshire if one wishes to defeat the Tories there, with the LD vote squeezed? Encouraging the LD vote will split the opposition and lead to a "good" result for Johnson such as the following % vote share: Con 35, Labour 31, LD 29, Others 5.

Remember the LDs are not socialists (they are similar to the German Free Democrats) and often behave as the Tories' little helpers. Only under the late Charles Kennedy (who was originally a Social Democrat) were they left-of-centre (and to the left of the Blair-led Labour party). Is encouraging the LD vote in North Shropshire a deliberate Tory plan to split the opposition vote?

Tory lead in North Shropshire narrowed to seven points, internal polling suggests – LabourList

Internal polling from Labour North Shropshire:

Con: 40% (-23)
Lab: 33% (+11)
LDem: 11% (+1)
Reform: 7% (+7)
Grn: 2% (-1)
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
6,072
That is based on betting without any evidence that the LDs are best placed to beat the Tories there;

Actually the betting is itself evidence - because the odds will be heavily informed by what people are actually betting. In many cases those people will be people betting for the party that they have decided to vote for, or people who are campaigning and so can feel the mood in the constituency, and therefore have some sense of who it's worth betting for. Besides there are plenty of reports around that the LibDems are mounting a huge campaign there, and Labour - basically - isn't.

they were in a poor 3rd place at the 2019 GE. Surely Labour is the party to vote for in North Shropshire if one wishes to defeat the Tories there, with the LD vote squeezed? Encouraging the LD vote will split the opposition and lead to a "good" result for Johnson such as the following % vote share: Con 35, Labour 31, LD 29, Others 5.

Remember the LDs are not socialists (they are similar to the German Free Democrats) and often behave as the Tories' little helpers. Only under the late Charles Kennedy (who was originally a Social Democrat) were they left-of-centre (and to the left of the Blair-led Labour party). Is encouraging the LD vote in North Shropshire a deliberate Tory plan to split the opposition vote?

Tory lead in North Shropshire narrowed to seven points, internal polling suggests – LabourList

Are you campaigning for the Labour Party by any chance? The comment "often behave as the Tories' little helpers" seems a bit like the kind of slur that could only come from someone very partisan.

Yes, the LD's are not socialists - and that's exactly why they are often better placed to defeat the Tories in very conservative seats like this one: Plenty of people who would normally vote Tory/are moderately right wing may be willing to switch to LibDem, but would never dream of voting Labour.
 
Last edited:

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
1,443
Location
Liverpool
Because I'm broadly familiar with the results for the the elections since WW2. Check them out - you can easily find them on wikipedia. It shouldn't take long to see that what I'm saying is correct (Certainly for elections since 1992 and to some extent since 1974. Prior to the 1970s the picture was different.

EDIT... Rather than asserting, I decided I should make the effort to show you the data (the data was easily available, but putting it into a visually obvious form was a bit more work). So, some fiddling in Excel... Here is a plot of the Commons majority against % vote share lead for every UK general election in the last 50 years. I think it's fairly obvious that the Labour are getting bigger majorities than the Tories for a given lead - in other words, the electoral system and the way votes are geographically distributed tends to favour Labour more than the Tories. The only exception - Oct 1974 - is nearly 50 years ago. Note that for Feb 1974, the Tories won the popular vote but Labour actually got more seats.

View attachment 106704

It's not the vote share that matters here. What primarily matters for this comparison is the % lead that the winning party has over the opposition. The reason the Tory result in 2017 was different is because their lead over Labour in 2017 was only 2.4%, compared to 11.5% in 2019 and 6.5% in 2015.
1997 particularly confuses me. If the Conservatives were in power right before this, why would they make it so Labour can get a higher majority with less percentage lead than the Tories had in 1983? Am I the only one who thinks something doesn't add up?
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
4,532
Location
Maidstone
I am merely looking at the previous party vote shares in this constituency.

I called the current Labour party leader Baron Keir von Sturmer earlier in this thread.
My understanding is the reason the Lib Dems are targeting this more than Labour is because the council more recently voted a higher Lib Dem share than a Labour one, and also, as @DynamicSpirit said above, and also shown in Chesham and Amersham earlier this year, moving from Tory to Lib Dem is less of a jump than Tory to Labour. There are also Labour voters who'll lend their vote to Lib Dem if they believe it gets the Tories out of a particular seat, again something that happened in C&A.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,247
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
My understanding is the reason the Lib Dems are targeting this more than Labour is because the council more recently voted a higher Lib Dem share than a Labour one, and also, as @DynamicSpirit said above, and also shown in Chesham and Amersham earlier this year, moving from Tory to Lib Dem is less of a jump than Tory to Labour. There are also Labour voters who'll lend their vote to Lib Dem if they believe it gets the Tories out of a particular seat, again something that happened in C&A.
Shropshire County Council is a unitary authority, and includes the LD-favourable constituency of Ludlow, hence the council make-up; none of the LD-held council seats are in the north of the county. If the by-election was in the Ludlow seat, it would be reasonable for a Labour voter there to vote LD with a reasonable chance of getting the Tories out (as happened successfully in Richmond, Surrey and Chesham & Amersham); that does not apply in North Shropshire.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
3,999
Location
Up the creek
We live in interesting times. A lot of people may be temporarily changing their usual political allegiances in order to get the Tories out/give them a good kicking. If you are a Labour voter you may feel that the party is never going to greatly increase its vote, but it is possible that the LibDems might, and so you will add your vote to their number. A LibDem voter will be more determined than ever to vote the way they usually do. A Tory may well be lukewarm about the usual destination of their vote and either not vote or defect to another party: they may choose one of the various right-wing fringe parties or, possibly with a bit of reluctance, vote LibDem. They can probably live with the LibDems, but most would never vote Labour. Do not forget the unsavoury reasons for this by-election, which are in addition to the chaos in Westminster.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
2,409
Location
Kent
1997 particularly confuses me. If the Conservatives were in power right before this, why would they make it so Labour can get a higher majority with less percentage lead than the Tories had in 1983? Am I the only one who thinks something doesn't add up?
I don't see why. Labour had been poling much higher up until just before the election - over 50%, it dropped away between the election being called and polling day. One beneficiary was the LibDems who went from 22 seats to 46 so maybe tactical voting, the Tories were deeply unpopular in some areas. They were wiped out in Scotland (-11) and Wales (-8); in London, too, I believe they did badly - I can remember the defeat of Michael Portillo (much lauded by Ian Hislop but I can't find the clip). They were divided over Europe with Jimmy Goldsmith's Referendum party contesting some seats - not winning any but maybe doing enough with votes. Labour also, I think for the first time, really targetted certain seats, the 'Worcester Woman' seats, where they won for the first time. There had also been a rejigging of the boundaries. Comparing 1997 with 2001 is more interesting.

Of course, 1983 was the Falklands Election ('Rejoice, rejoice'), and Labour was led by Michael Foot (with dissidents in the camp) so would be difficult to compare with anything except possibly the coupon election of 1918 (but even that is difficult because it involved a coalition).

A Tory may well be lukewarm about the usual destination of their vote and either not vote or defect to another party: they may choose one of the various right-wing fringe parties or, possibly with a bit of reluctance, vote LibDem. They can probably live with the LibDems, but most would never vote Labour. Do not forget the unsavoury reasons for this by-election, which are in addition to the chaos in Westminster.
I also think a fair few Tories will stay at home, disgusted by what has happened in the last few weeks.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
6,072
1997 particularly confuses me. If the Conservatives were in power right before this, why would they make it so Labour can get a higher majority with less percentage lead than the Tories had in 1983? Am I the only one who thinks something doesn't add up?

The Tories didn't make it so. It's just how the electoral system is. I think part of it is that historically, Labour seats tend to be smaller because of the historic population drift to the suburbs - and the periodic boundary revisions never quite managed to keep up with that trend. Scotland in particular was over-represented in 1997, and was a Labour stronghold at that time (Theoretically, the Tories could probably have done something about that particular issue before 1997, but I suspect they would probably have been disinclined to because of their strong unionist traditions). Part of it may have been because there was anti-Tory tactical voting in 1997, but I don't think tactical voting was a thing in 1983. And I think part of it would have been just down to votes being geographically distributed in a way that made it easier for Labour to win seats - that that can happen is arguably one of the many problems of FPTP, but isn't really something any party can do much about, without a wholesale change to PR.

(I think - if my historical understanding is correct - between 1945 and 1970, the bias tended to be slightly the other way, with the Conservatives benefitting more than Labour from the way votes were distributed - so it can change as demographics change).
 
Last edited:

Saint66

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2013
Messages
747
Location
Herts
Mirror has released picture of BoJo hosting an Xmas quiz last year, 3 days before the 18th December party.

Times also reporting that Theresa May’s allies are plotting a vote of no confidence, and that Patel wants the leadership.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
4,532
Location
Maidstone
Mirror has released picture of BoJo hosting an Xmas quiz last year, 3 days before the 18th December party.

Times also reporting that Theresa May’s allies are plotting a vote of no confidence, and that Patel wants the leadership.
The irony of Theresa May's allies taking down Johnson when it was Johnson's allies who sealed May's fate.
 

Top