We could probably come up with an xkcd-style one of our own. If we do exclude 1918-and-before as well as 1931 and 1945, we can have:It absolutely is, and thanks for a nice piece.That's true but it is often interesting, sometimes informative, and occasionally salutary to look back at what's happened in the past.I was expecting the article to be by @NickPalmer given the headline...Your thesis is that historical precedent (or lack thereof) trumps polling. I am sceptical. I think polling trumps historical precedent.
An interesting analysis, but drawing a conclusion rather different from mine. Because swings of such magnitude are very rare, I would say Labour is unlikely to get an overall majority. Not impossible, but unlikely.
A couple of other points:
1) It's not worth considering elections before 1885 for swing, due to the restricted electorate, and in many ways it isn't worth considering elections before 1918 due to the limited number of seats actually contested. In 1900, for example, 243 seats were returned unopposed.
2) This also solves the problem with 1918!
3) I would also note the swing in 1931 was fiendishly complicated as well, due to splits, electoral pacts and the economic crisis. So that swing is not much use as a comparison.
4) The 1945 general election was not only the only election since 1900 held in wartime* but brought an end to the longest parliament since the dissolution of the Long Parliament in 1660. It was also the last election at which multiple voting was allowed. I don't think the swing there tells us much either.
5) That means that there is only one election where there was a swing which - if replicated - would give Starmer's Labour a majority. The election concerned was 1997. That swing would give Starmer a majority of one.
That's a formidable task. It's remarkable it's even possible, but even allowing for Rishi Sunak being more deluded than a Republican Senator it seems to me in the words of Lord Peter Wimsey an improbable-possible.
*Technically 1918 was too but there was a ceasefire in effect, so I'm not counting that.
There’s no magic about historical precedent. It’s just what has happened to happen. There isn’t a mechanism of action by which what has happened before constrains what will happen next time. If very large numbers of people are saying they will vote Labour, and only small numbers say Conservative, I think we have to believe them.
But whenever anyone produces a historical precedent argument, I am reminded of the xkcd cartoon.
1966 - Going from a narrow majority to a landslide had only happened once before; lightning doesn't strike twice. But it did this time.We could probably come up with an xkcd-style one of our own. If we do exclude 1918-and-before as well as 1931 and 1945, we can have:It absolutely is, and thanks for a nice piece.That's true but it is often interesting, sometimes informative, and occasionally salutary to look back at what's happened in the past.I was expecting the article to be by @NickPalmer given the headline...Your thesis is that historical precedent (or lack thereof) trumps polling. I am sceptical. I think polling trumps historical precedent.
An interesting analysis, but drawing a conclusion rather different from mine. Because swings of such magnitude are very rare, I would say Labour is unlikely to get an overall majority. Not impossible, but unlikely.
A couple of other points:
1) It's not worth considering elections before 1885 for swing, due to the restricted electorate, and in many ways it isn't worth considering elections before 1918 due to the limited number of seats actually contested. In 1900, for example, 243 seats were returned unopposed.
2) This also solves the problem with 1918!
3) I would also note the swing in 1931 was fiendishly complicated as well, due to splits, electoral pacts and the economic crisis. So that swing is not much use as a comparison.
4) The 1945 general election was not only the only election since 1900 held in wartime* but brought an end to the longest parliament since the dissolution of the Long Parliament in 1660. It was also the last election at which multiple voting was allowed. I don't think the swing there tells us much either.
5) That means that there is only one election where there was a swing which - if replicated - would give Starmer's Labour a majority. The election concerned was 1997. That swing would give Starmer a majority of one.
That's a formidable task. It's remarkable it's even possible, but even allowing for Rishi Sunak being more deluded than a Republican Senator it seems to me in the words of Lord Peter Wimsey an improbable-possible.
*Technically 1918 was too but there was a ceasefire in effect, so I'm not counting that.
There’s no magic about historical precedent. It’s just what has happened to happen. There isn’t a mechanism of action by which what has happened before constrains what will happen next time. If very large numbers of people are saying they will vote Labour, and only small numbers say Conservative, I think we have to believe them.
But whenever anyone produces a historical precedent argument, I am reminded of the xkcd cartoon.
1922 - it was vanishingly unlikely for a third party to leapfrog into second place. But Labour did just that
1923 - A sub-1% swing was hardly going to put Labour into Number 10. But that's where Ramsay MacDonald ended up
1924 - Going from Opposition to a 200+ super-landslide was unprecedented, but it happened for the Tories. On a mere 3% swing, at that.
1929 - Losing a 200+ majority in a single election just doesn't happen. Until Baldwin lost it and went back into Opposition. Labour saw the first ever swing of over 5% since we started these comparisons (albeit on a sample of 4 )
1931 - [excluded]
1935 - No party to date had retained a landslide majority since starting the comparisons after 1918, but the Tories managed it here. In addition, a swing of over 7% was seen for the first time.
1945 - [excluded]
1950 - Despite winning over 13 million votes for the first time ever, Labour almost entirely loses a formerly-landslide majority.
1951 - The Tories lose the vote (ending up 0.8% behind) but win a majority; the first time this has happened since the universal franchise.
1955 - A governing party ALWAYS loses vote share and seats in subsequent elections (literally an argument used by Churchill to Eden to try to persuade the latter to let the former stay on). But not this time. (In addition, getting a swing towards the same party three times in a row had only happened twice since the Great Reform Act, and never since before the Second Reform Act)
1959 - To win a landslide after two full terms in power was totally unprecedented; getting a swing towards the same party four times in a row hadn't happened since the Great Reform Act. Until now.
1964 - You know, I can't see anything unparallelled in this one.
(1/2)
Btw, thanks for the interesting piece, Ben.Thanks. The header I posted on the Swingers Forum entitled 'Why I plan to lay the Tories' got a few accidental politicos too.
Has it occurred to you that it will probably cause a spike in visitors to the Site? Imagine all those people googling Swingers Clubs and being directed here. Ah well, it will make a change from Russian Trolls.
There are 14 million people between the river and the sea - in the land containing Gaza, the West Bank and Israel proper. Of these (roughly), 7 million are Jews and 7 million are Muslim Arabs.So utterly predictable, if depressing: support for Hamas soars in West Bank after October attack.October revealed (or rather unleashed) a very deadly situation right now. I can quite understand how they might regard dealing with that severely now to be necessary, even if it they were aware that it will indeed see even more people there be supportive of Hamas long term. The urgency of reducing martial capacity for their immediate security.
What is Israel achieving other than sowing the seeds of future intractable conflicts?
As for the last point, the conflict already seemed pretty intractable. There's wider instability now, but is the change for Israel one of degree only?
Is it the right choice? Fuck if I know, but with an enemy who they know wants to commit further attacks and already had plenty of support it is easy to see how Israel would calculate an increase in that support but less immediate opportunity to act on it would still be a net win, at the cost of constant vigilance, which they already thought they were doing.
That's a disgusting view. I know we disagree on this topic, but I'm shocked to see you say that.859 innocents:So utterly predictable, if depressing: support for Hamas soars in West Bank after October attack.What was Hamas achieving on 7/10 other than the murder of 1200 innocent Jews?
What is Israel achieving other than sowing the seeds of future intractable conflicts?
Welcome back @MoonRabbit 👍That’s not a bad Opinium for Labour, before swingback the pollster must have found at least 42% for Labour. With pro government swingback built in, it’s a LLG of 58.OpiniumOne week late! Slackers!
@OpiniumResearch
🚨 New polling with
@ObserverUK
Labour lead sits at 13 points.
• Labour 40% (-3)
• Conservatives 27% (+1)
• Lib Dems 11% (n/c)
• SNP 3% (n/c)
• Greens 7% (+1)
• Reform 9% (n/c)
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1736114016446038166?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
Any way, Broken, sleazy Labour on the slide!
It will also help Labour massively if the Conservatives actually use the term Ceasefire. As in UK government position of calling for one. And Labour can tack towards that. The Statement from David Cameron is excellent, and clever politics to strap it to the German government position so it’s not thought of just a position of one of the Five tory Houses.
Only for the ones which the grammar school system didn't exclude in the first place.Abolishing grammar schools kicked away the ladder for many working class children in Britain.Starmer risks looking very fake if he carries on in this direction:I grew up in a working class family. My mother was a butcher and my dad a welder. I went to university, got a PhD, now I am a senior lecturer (in the #1 programme in my field) and assiciate dean at a major business school. Not a day goes by where I don't remember that things could have been very very different for me. I really value social mobility, but sadly I don't owe it to the UK. I am half Danish and did my BSc MSc and PhD there....then came back here for tenure. I totally get where Starmer is coming from. Get this: if you are born into poverty in the UK, on average it takes your family 5 generations to make it up to median income... FIVE. In Denmark that takes two generations. 🤷 That difference is no coincidence... it is class society.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1735710450216538243
Coming from a working class home, I never thought I'd end up studying law at university.
God, how many times have we had to endure that? It must be eleven plus.Starmer risks looking very fake if he carries on in this direction:Oh no. You can now expect another excruciatingly dull grammar school debate between myself and HYUFD. I am sure you have had prior warning.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1735710450216538243
Coming from a working class home, I never thought I'd end up studying law at university.