Sir David Butler's classification of General Election result

[nodealbrexiteer]

During the 1997 election campaign Sir David Butler was writing a regular column for the Financial Times and he classified the General Election results from 1918 to 1992 inclusive with the hopefully self explanatory labels 'Surprisingly large majority', 'Surprisingly small majority', 'Expected winner lost', 'As expected'-he did admit the classifications were crude and reading his more up to date views I think he revised his view on some(if I can pull them together and put them in this thread I will):


Surprisingly large majority:1918,1922,1924,1931,1935,1959,1966,1983.

Surprisingly small majority:1950,1951,1964,October 1974.

Expected winner lost:1923,1929,1945,1970,February 1974,1992.

As expected:1955,1979,1987.


This will provoke some debate-maybe!

[The Bishop]

Carrying on from the above:

2001, 2005 - "as expected"

2010, 2017 - "surprisingly small majority" (if not winning a majority at all when that was widely expected counts)

2015 - "expected winner lost"

1997, 2019 - "surprisingly large majority"

[nodealbrexiteer]

Feb 29, 2020 12:12:42 GMT The Bishop said:

Carrying on from the above:

2001, 2005 - "as expected"

2010, 2017 - "surprisingly small majority" (if not winning a majority at all when that was widely expected counts)

2015 - "expected winner lost"

1997, 2019 - "surprisingly large majority"

Thank you! I um and ah over some
1997-I'd agree
2001-Broadly I'd agree though at the time when I was still voting Labour I was pleasantly surprised Labour hadn't ballsed up a good majority from the previous election
2005-I'd agree-some people might say surprisingly small majority given what the last polls would have projected to on uniform swing put plenty of wise commentators saw Labour would do less well than uniform swing this time.
2010-I would say result broadly as expected(I think there was widespread recognition we might be heading for a hung parliament) though the Lib Dem surge didn't materialise
2015-I'd agree(similar to 1992!)
2017-I'd agree
2019-I'd agree

I'm wondering will anyone disagree on Butler's list-each election there could be debated somewhat!

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Feb 29, 2020 12:12:42 GMT The Bishop said:

Carrying on from the above:

2001, 2005 - "as expected"

2010, 2017 - "surprisingly small majority" (if not winning a majority at all when that was widely expected counts)

2015 - "expected winner lost"

1997, 2019 - "surprisingly large majority"

I'd categorize a few of them rather differently:

1997, 2001 (the net gain of just 1 seat – basically not ballsing up the selection in Tatton – was truly shocking), 2005 (it was a wrong-winner election in England!), 2015 (Cameron's plan worked too well and he had to give us our referendum, rather than hiding behind the Lib Dems), 2019 – "surprisingly large majority"
2017 – "surprisingly small majority"
2010 (the polls had this in hung parliament territory all along, which only fed the Lib Dems with coverage) – "as expected"
none – "expected winner lost"

[nodealbrexiteer]

THE GREAT MAN IN JULY 2015-SEE BELOW:

On another point, it is worth remembering that unexpected results have been the norm rather than the exception. We shouldn't have been so surprised by how surprised we were this year.

In twelve of the last twenty general elections the outcome has defied the prophets – and the pollsters.

In three elections ('45, '66 and '97) there was a Labour victory of totally unexpected proportions.
In three others ('50, '64 and October '74) an expected Labour victory was achieved by only a single-figure margin.
In four contests ('59, '70, '92, and 2015) there was a Conservative victory that was either totally unexpected or of unexpected scale.
And in two elections (February '74 and 2010) there was a hung parliament that few anticipated.

[evergreenadam]

2010 was clearly heading for a hung Parliament.

[The Bishop]

Didn't polls fairly accurately predict 1959 and 1966? And in 1983 some actually suggested a Tory majority of 250 plus.....

[Davıd Boothroyd]

In 2010 it depends which point you take the polls. The Conservatives had a consistent lead from 2006 but from the start of 2010 it was not very large. Then during the campaign the Lib Dems surged.

In retrospect (though not many people were making this point at the time) note that the Conservatives went into that election with fewer MPs than Labour has now, and lots of people are now saying it's not possible for any party to make that many seat gains in a single election.

Hugh Gaitskell had thought 1959 was winnable during the election.

[carlton43]

Mar 1, 2020 10:31:04 GMT The Bishop said:

Didn't polls fairly accurately predict 1959 and 1966? And in 1983 some actually suggested a Tory majority of 250 plus.....

I lived through each of those as a political animal and can assure everyone that the result was in no doubt whatsoever all through each campaign for astute involved practitioners.  There was some wild talk in 1983 by those given to a bit of euphoria, but for most of us the final majority was a bit better than expected.

[nodealbrexiteer]

Mar 1, 2020 10:31:04 GMT The Bishop said:

Didn't polls fairly accurately predict 1959 and 1966? And in 1983 some actually suggested a Tory majority of 250 plus.....

More accurate in 1959 and 1966-i think the surprisingly large majority feeling for each of these 3 might have been affected by the run ups to the election ie Suez and a more united Labour party in 1959, the fact in 1966 that is was only 7 years previously that the Tories had a 100 seat majority and the turbulence the government had in 1979 to 1981. The polls in the immediate run up to the elections might suggest broadly an 'as expected' result-as I said a lot to debate!

[nodealbrexiteer]

Mar 1, 2020 10:44:00 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

In 2010 it depends which point you take the polls. The Conservatives had a consistent lead from 2006 but from the start of 2010 it was not very large. Then during the campaign the Lib Dems surged.

In retrospect (though not many people were making this point at the time) note that the Conservatives went into that election with fewer MPs than Labour has now, and lots of people are now saying it's not possible for any party to make that many seat gains in a single election.

Hugh Gaitskell had thought 1959 was winnable during the election.

Yes I got that impression about Gaitskell reading my history. in 2010 the Conservatives went up from a notional 210 to 307 so a large gain is possible but it wasn't quite enough and reinforces how difficult it is to go from a working majority at dissolution for one party to one for the other.

[heslingtonian]

Would have predicted the following elections which I have a memory of as follows before the results were announced:

1992 - Hung Parliament, Labour largest party
1997 - Labour majority c. 100
2001 - Labour majority c. 120
2005 - Labour majority c. 90
2010 - Conservative majority c. 30
2015 - Hung Parliament, Conservative largest party
2017 - Conservative majority c. 50
2019 - Conservative majority c. 60

[heslingtonian]

I think all parties need to be very careful about this “you can’t win that many seats in one electoral cycle” argument. Perhaps from 1950-1997 that argument had merit but after the 1997 landslide, Labour’s meltdown in Scotland and losing much of the Red Wall in 2019, I’m not sure that argument applies. Swings of 10-20% have become quite normal. In the right or wrong circumstances (depending on your point of view) I think things could move back.

[Sibboleth]

Mar 1, 2020 17:16:31 GMT heslingtonian said:

I think all parties need to be very careful about this “you can’t win that many seats in one electoral cycle” argument. Perhaps from 1950-1997 that argument had merit but after the 1997 landslide, Labour’s meltdown in Scotland and losing much of the Red Wall in 2019, I’m not sure that argument applies. Swings of 10-20% have become quite normal. In the right or wrong circumstances (depending on your point of view) I think things could move back.

All of which is exactly what you would expect when a majority of the electorate has no party loyalty whatsoever. Nasty surprises for all will continue until the implications of that are properly absorbed (i.e. almost certainly never).

[clyde1998]

Mar 1, 2020 17:16:31 GMT heslingtonian said:

I think all parties need to be very careful about this “you can’t win that many seats in one electoral cycle” argument. Perhaps from 1950-1997 that argument had merit but after the 1997 landslide, Labour’s meltdown in Scotland and losing much of the Red Wall in 2019, I’m not sure that argument applies. Swings of 10-20% have become quite normal. In the right or wrong circumstances (depending on your point of view) I think things could move back.

I think the larger swings have become normal because there's more 'mainstream' parties than pre-1997 (some of whom occupy a similar space of the political spectrum as the 'mainstream' parties, so switching between them is easier than switching between Lab and Con or even Lib Dem). Also, most of the big swings have either not between Labour and the Conservatives or have been indirect swings (ie. caused by movement to/from a third party).

I discount swings where either of the two parties didn't contest one of the elections, where the incumbent has defected or where there's a stand down in favour of a specific party/candidate.

Where they have been direct swings, they've almost always been as a result of a constitutional issue where the divide has been different to the standard electoral divide. I can't think of a big swing that's primary cause was more conventional political issues in recent years.

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Mar 1, 2020 17:08:08 GMT heslingtonian said:

Would have predicted the following elections which I have a memory of as follows before the results were announced:

1992 - Hung Parliament, Labour largest party
1997 - Labour majority c. 100
2001 - Labour majority c. 120
2005 - Labour majority c. 90
2010 - Conservative majority c. 30
2015 - Hung Parliament, Conservative largest party
2017 - Conservative majority c. 50
2019 - Conservative majority c. 60

What my expectations were was:
1992 - Labour majority 20
1997 - Labour majority 80
2001 - Labour majority 100
2005 - hung parliament, Labour largest party, but with us largest in England
2010 - hung parliament, hopefully in the Con+DUP range
2015 - Conservative majority 20
2017 - Conservative majority 60
2019 - Conservative majority 60 (very much what 2017 ought to have been)

[timrollpickering]

Mar 1, 2020 17:16:31 GMT heslingtonian said:

I think all parties need to be very careful about this “you can’t win that many seats in one electoral cycle” argument. Perhaps from 1950-1997 that argument had merit but after the 1997 landslide, Labour’s meltdown in Scotland and losing much of the Red Wall in 2019, I’m not sure that argument applies. Swings of 10-20% have become quite normal. In the right or wrong circumstances (depending on your point of view) I think things could move back.

I do remember in about 1999/2000 pointing out to a number of fellow Conservatives that a majority of 223 had been made in a single election and lost in another and that New Labour could be beaten sooner than many thought but some of that was whistling to keep spirits up when so many were confidently predicting the party would keep on sliding into oblivion.

(My recollection of post 1997 was that many Conservatives thought history mean Labour would be out in less than a decade, expecting them to initially retain power but with the majority smashed away as in 1950 and with the Liberals in 1910. It was only when Labour had broken their record for the longest single period in government that the party started getting its act together.)

[nodealbrexiteer]

Mar 1, 2020 17:08:08 GMT heslingtonian said:

Would have predicted the following elections which I have a memory of as follows before the results were announced:

1992 - Hung Parliament, Labour largest party
1997 - Labour majority c. 100
2001 - Labour majority c. 120
2005 - Labour majority c. 90
2010 - Conservative majority c. 30
2015 - Hung Parliament, Conservative largest party
2017 - Conservative majority c. 50
2019 - Conservative majority c. 60

I think I thought 
1992 hung parliament
1997 Lab majority but not as big as emerged
2001 Lab majority of 105 at start of the campaign which I wasn't bold enough to revise
2005 Labour majority of 80 after thinking 50 to 70 at the campaign's start
2010 Con majority of 8
2015 Con largest party in hung parliament
2017 Con majority of 60 to 70
2019 Con majority of 34 though I then said to a friend I think it could be higher

[nodealbrexiteer]

Mar 1, 2020 17:16:31 GMT heslingtonian said:

I think all parties need to be very careful about this “you can’t win that many seats in one electoral cycle” argument. Perhaps from 1950-1997 that argument had merit but after the 1997 landslide, Labour’s meltdown in Scotland and losing much of the Red Wall in 2019, I’m not sure that argument applies. Swings of 10-20% have become quite normal. In the right or wrong circumstances (depending on your point of view) I think things could move back.

It does seem there is greater volatility now then there was in the 1950 to 1992 period

[nodealbrexiteer]

Mar 1, 2020 19:26:32 GMT timrollpickering said:

Mar 1, 2020 17:16:31 GMT heslingtonian said:

I think all parties need to be very careful about this “you can’t win that many seats in one electoral cycle” argument. Perhaps from 1950-1997 that argument had merit but after the 1997 landslide, Labour’s meltdown in Scotland and losing much of the Red Wall in 2019, I’m not sure that argument applies. Swings of 10-20% have become quite normal. In the right or wrong circumstances (depending on your point of view) I think things could move back.

I do remember in about 1999/2000 pointing out to a number of fellow Conservatives that a majority of 223 had been made in a single election and lost in another and that New Labour could be beaten sooner than many thought but some of that was whistling to keep spirits up when so many were confidently predicting the party would keep on sliding into oblivion.

(My recollection of post 1997 was that many Conservatives thought history mean Labour would be out in less than a decade, expecting them to initially retain power but with the majority smashed away as in 1950 and with the Liberals in 1910. It was only when Labour had broken their record for the longest single period in government that the party started getting its act together.)

Was that loss of the 223 majority 1924 to 1929? I did think Labour might lose office earlier given their past record of frittering away good positions(and I worried about it as I was still Labour voting as I said earlier). Then again after the near repeat landslide of 2001 should they have eked out more than just another 9 years?