|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Mar 1, 2020 22:05:10 GMT
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.) My defining moment of the 2001 campaign was trudging around Birmingham Hall Green, because Nigel Hastilow had it in the bag in Edgbaston. Yes, that far out. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 1, 2020 23:01:55 GMT
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! I think Butler has 1983 and 1987 the wrong way round. The last week of the 1987 campaign was nervous, and the xit poll suggested a majority of 26 (possibly going up to 68). |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,050
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 1, 2020 23:53:46 GMT
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! I think Butler has 1983 and 1987 the wrong way round. The last week of the 1987 campaign was nervous, and the xit poll suggested a majority of 26 (possibly going up to 68). I can see the case for that and the Sunday Times did comment they pleasantly surprised by the size of the majority |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,862 
|
Post by Pimpernal on Mar 2, 2020 8:00:12 GMT
2015 - "expected winner lost" Did anyone really expect a Labour victory? Maybe a hung parliament, but Labour outright?  |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,525
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 2, 2020 11:13:39 GMT
In this context I took "winner" as meaning the biggest party.....
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,050
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 2, 2020 11:31:48 GMT
In this context I took "winner" as meaning the biggest party..... I took it broadly the same or as the party expected to form the government (even if minority) lost. I think the thought was even as the 2nd largest party if LAbour were close enough to the Tories they could shut the Tories out. I did say the classifications were 'crude'  |
|
