Definition of "landslide" for general elections

[AdminSTB]

The word "landslide" has been used many times since Thursday night to describe the scale of the Conservative victory. Do you agree with this description of the result? I've always considered a landslide to mean a three figure majority, as in 1945, 1959, 1983, 1987, 1997 and 2001.
I'd personally describe the Conservative win last week as "very comfortable" in historical terms but I'm not sure it quite fits into the "landslide" category. Having said that, I'm too young to remember such a large Tory majority being achieved. Perhaps 100+ majorities are a thing of the past in this polarised age.

[mboy]

I wondered this too, and also instinctively though 100+ was the boundary. Having said that, a more technical definition of “slide” might suggest that it’s the amount of *change* that defines it (which would mean 2001 wasnt, but 2010 was!) But given it was Labour’s worst result in nearly a century, I think the landslide description is also fair.

[Deleted]

I think it was a mix.

Labour got a landslide in London, winning Putney which they lost in 2005.

The SNP beat the Tories by 20% and clearly achieved a landslide in Scotland.

And of course, the Tories won seats like North East Derbyshire and Stoke South by landslide margins.

[mondialito]

It's the size of the majorty for me, 100 is the minimum. This election, like 1966, was a very large win.

[andrewp]

I tend to agree about the 100 mark.

The term landslide is probably incorrectly used.

2001 was a big majority for Blair, but is it a literal landslide when not much changed from 1997?

Also Cameron gaining 112 seats in 2010 probably is a landslide of seats albeit one which didn’t lead to a majority,

[Deleted]

2010 was the biggest net gain in seats for the Conservatives since 1931!

[Andrew_S]

Dec 16, 2019 19:13:12 GMT andrewp said:

I tend to agree about the 100 mark.

The term landslide is probably incorrectly used.

2001 was a big majority for Blair, but is it a literal landslide when not much changed from 1997?

Also Cameron gaining 112 seats in 2010 probably is a landslide of seats albeit one which didn’t lead to a majority,

The Tories' working majority isn't far off 100 if you take Sinn Fein into account. And I think it is over 100 with the Democrat Unionists (which I accept isn't very valid now).

[johnloony]

I think of it as being 100 or more.

But at a local/micro level, I have often thought that Croydon Central is only ever won by Labour when Labour wins a landslide nationally (this obviously is no longer true since 2017), which would mean that a parliamentary majority of 96 counts as a landslide (i.e. 1966) which is therefore slightly stretching the definition.

[syorkssocialist]

Personally I think anything over the 360 seat mark can probably be described as a landslide.

[Deleted]

Given the scale and location of the Tories' win, and the way Labour were decimated, I'd say "landslide" is probably accurate.

[clyde1998]

I think it was a landslide in England and Wales.

For me, landslide simply means taking almost everything in its way, which can partly be determined by seat count and partly by vote share - the Conservatives won 47% of the English and Welsh vote, which is the highest vote share of any party since the Conservatives in 1970 (albeit the Lib Dems and forerunners were on over 17.5% in every election between Feb 1974 and 2010 - with the exception of 1979 where they got 14.7%).

It was only Scotland that prevented them from winning a majority greater than 100.

[Deleted]

Dec 17, 2019 2:51:32 GMT clyde1998 said:

I think it was a landslide in England and Wales.

For me, landslide simply means taking almost everything in its way, which can partly be determined by seat count and partly by vote share - the Conservatives won 47% of the English and Welsh vote, which is the highest vote share of any party since the Conservatives in 1970 (albeit the Lib Dems and forerunners were on over 17.5% in every election between Feb 1974 and 2010 - with the exception of 1979 where they got 14.7%).

It was only Scotland that prevented them from winning a majority greater than 100.

And of course Maggie won by a landslide in London.

[froome]

I wouldn't describe it as a landslide, for three reasons. Firstly, there was no change in the party who won - it was already a Conservative government and they have now been elected with a much large majority. Secondly, I would agree with those suggesting a landslide ought to be when the majority reaches 100. But thirdly, and most importantly, the vote was highly regional and national in nature.

The Conservatives failed to make any gains in both Scotland and all of southern England (as in south of the M4), and in parts of these areas the movement was away from them. The same is true in some northern cities like Liverpool and Manchester. A true landslide would not include such large areas that don't conform with the overall result. However, it is reasonable to describe what happened in the Midlands and much of northern England as a regional landslide.

[andrewp]

Dec 17, 2019 10:49:35 GMT froome said:

I wouldn't describe it as a landslide, for three reasons. Firstly, there was no change in the party who won - it was already a Conservative government and they have now been elected with a much large majority. Secondly, I would agree with those suggesting a landslide ought to be when the majority reaches 100. But thirdly, and most importantly, the vote was highly regional and national in nature.

The Conservatives failed to make any gains in both Scotland and all of southern England (as in south of the M4), and in parts of these areas the movement was away from them. The same is true in some northern cities like Liverpool and Manchester. A true landslide would not include such large areas that don't conform with the overall result. However, it is reasonable to describe what happened in the Midlands and much of northern England as a regional landslide.

i agree with all your points, possibly except that South of the M4 is a rather limited definition of southern England and were there any realistic Conservative targets South of the M4 except the 2- Canterbury and Portsmouth South ?

[No Offence Alan]

Is the SNP's 48 seats out of 59 a landslide?
That's the equivalent of over 500 seats out of 650.

[Peter Wilkinson]

Dec 17, 2019 10:49:35 GMT froome said:

I wouldn't describe it as a landslide, for three reasons. Firstly, there was no change in the party who won - it was already a Conservative government and they have now been elected with a much large majority. Secondly, I would agree with those suggesting a landslide ought to be when the majority reaches 100. But thirdly, and most importantly, the vote was highly regional and national in nature.

The Conservatives failed to make any gains in both Scotland and all of southern England (as in south of the M4), and in parts of these areas the movement was away from them. The same is true in some northern cities like Liverpool and Manchester. A true landslide would not include such large areas that don't conform with the overall result. However, it is reasonable to describe what happened in the Midlands and much of northern England as a regional landslide.

Presumably with the eastern boundary of southern England being at the longitude of the eastern end of the M4 in Chiswick - as otherwise it becomes difficult to explain Carshalton and Wallington and Eastbourne

[froome]

Dec 17, 2019 11:50:59 GMT Peter Wilkinson said:

Dec 17, 2019 10:49:35 GMT froome said:

I wouldn't describe it as a landslide, for three reasons. Firstly, there was no change in the party who won - it was already a Conservative government and they have now been elected with a much large majority. Secondly, I would agree with those suggesting a landslide ought to be when the majority reaches 100. But thirdly, and most importantly, the vote was highly regional and national in nature.

The Conservatives failed to make any gains in both Scotland and all of southern England (as in south of the M4), and in parts of these areas the movement was away from them. The same is true in some northern cities like Liverpool and Manchester. A true landslide would not include such large areas that don't conform with the overall result. However, it is reasonable to describe what happened in the Midlands and much of northern England as a regional landslide.

Presumably with the eastern boundary of southern England being at the longitude of the eastern end of the M4 in Chiswick - as otherwise it becomes difficult to explain Carshalton and Wallington and Eastbourne

Yup, I had been thinking of Lab-Con seats when I wrote it, and even then I wasn't technically correct, as Kensington would count as below the M4. However, my general point still stands true, and while the Lib Dems did lose two of their seats here, they also made gains here and had votes moving in their direction.

There was a fourth point I also forgot to make about it not being a landslide - the Conservative vote rose nationally by only 1%, hardly an epic rise, and at least three other parties (Lib Dems, SNP and Greens) had percentage rises higher than this.

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Dec 17, 2019 12:56:17 GMT froome said:

Dec 17, 2019 11:50:59 GMT Peter Wilkinson said:

Presumably with the eastern boundary of southern England being at the longitude of the eastern end of the M4 in Chiswick - as otherwise it becomes difficult to explain Carshalton and Wallington and Eastbourne

Yup, I had been thinking of Lab-Con seats when I wrote it, and even then I wasn't technically correct, as Kensington would count as below the M4. However, my general point still stands true, and while the Lib Dems did lose two of their seats here, they also made gains here and had votes moving in their direction.

There was a fourth point I also forgot to make about it not being a landslide - the Conservative vote rose nationally by only 1%, hardly an epic rise, and at least three other parties (Lib Dems, SNP and Greens) had percentage rises higher than this.

Technically it would count as below the A40 Westway. ;-) [gets coat]

[carlton43]

Dec 16, 2019 19:01:20 GMT mondialito said:

It's the size of the majorty for me, 100 is the minimum. This election, like 1966, was a very large win.

For me it is more the nature and scale of the change of heart within a significant demographic or set of regions.

Going from a majority of 179 to one of 167 does not confer a title of 'landslide' on the latter; but going from largest party with no majority to one of 80 is most decidedly a landslide.

[Deleted]

There's also something not many people have mentioned and that is size of swing.

What happened in 1945, 1979, 1997 and 2010 would qualify as landslide swings. Each began a new era.

The Tories increasing their vote in each of the past 6 elections hides the scale of the 2010 swing.