On topic. Many thanks for a concise, clear and fun header.
But can I cast doubt on “Even for Labour to emerge with a bare majority at the next General Election…it would require a Labour lead of over 5% on the new boundaries according to Electoral Calculus, thus a swing of more than 8.5%” with the theory, if tactical voting is precise to sneak over the line where needed, bigger swings to Labour here, lesser swings to Labour where not needed, the full 8.5% national swing won’t be required?
Thanks, and yes, fair point.
I never quite know how to use the Electoral Calculus 'tactical voting' feature, so I generally don't. What tactical voting percentages to put in, and what do they mean?
Also, my whole adult life tactical voting has been the dog that didn't bark.
“All my adult life”
The next election can be different now Ben. For most elections in your life the top 3 parties had most the votes - even in 1997 others only managed 6.5.
Labour 43.2% Conservative 30.7% Liberal Democrat 16.8% Referendum 2.6% Scottish National 2.0% Others 1.9%
Yesterday’s Opinium had 21% outside the Big 3.
Start of last election, Con+UKIP was 50+ something, and Tories pulled a master stroke eating nearly all the UKIP and adding to their own score. Boris and Cummings pulled the rug from under Farage and made him spit blood. Things are different now, no Boris, Farage wanting revenge, no Corbyn.
I still think history will call 2024 a Brexit election, but not a get Brexit done, or defend Brexit election, now with Corbyn out the way this is the first time Remainia can give Tories a proper electoral kicking for Brexit.
Prof Curtice piece in this weekends Independent feels if Tory’s do very well getting don’t knows on board they can have 200 seats. Otherwise it could be 150.
Electoral Calculus is a uniform swingomter? Have to expect some anti Tory tactical voting on top of the numbers it gives you when the LLG is 55+. PBers pointed me to this one as building in tactical voting. https://sotn.newstatesman.com
'Meanwhile, new analysis shows the doubling of the threshold means most people in large parts of the UK will no longer earn enough to live with a partner from abroad, creating a new north-south divide. Three-quarters of people can afford to bring a loved one from abroad, but under the new threshold, more than 60% will not be able to afford it, rising to 75% in the north-east of England.
People in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, east Midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland will be worst affected and the south-east will be least affected.
[...]
The government has left open the possibility that even families already living together in the UK under the existing rules could be split up or have to move abroad if they do not meet the new criteria when their visa comes up for renewal. The Home Office said it “will confirm more details in due course”.
Pardon my French, but I thought PBers who complained about immigration complained most about the Southeast and housing shortage etc. etc. there?
There's one thing I haven't quite understood about this idea of £38k being the minimum a couple needs to live on.
Is the state pension going to be raised to £19k per person? Did I miss that?
Me neither. Perhaps it is to do with them paying for medical and social stuff, what with not being proper Brits in the view of the Tories, or something.
The new Tory criterion of Brits being "rich people"?
The old one used to be "white people".
I don't much like either.
I really hate to think what it is doing to the universities, for instance. Especially with this malicious reluctance to say whether existing families are still OK.
Look, 17.4 million people voted to send the forrin home. If they only earn £37k. It was literally on the ballot paper.
We also voted to keep old b*st*rds like me tied to Blighty, and the NHS.
I was expecting the article to be by @NickPalmer given the headline...
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.
Your thesis is that historical precedent (or lack thereof) trumps polling. I am sceptical. I think polling trumps historical precedent.
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.
That's true but it is often interesting, sometimes informative, and occasionally salutary to look back at what's happened in the past.
It absolutely is, and thanks for a nice piece.
But whenever anyone produces a historical precedent argument, I am reminded of the xkcd cartoon.
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:
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.
I was expecting the article to be by @NickPalmer given the headline...
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.
Your thesis is that historical precedent (or lack thereof) trumps polling. I am sceptical. I think polling trumps historical precedent.
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.
That's true but it is often interesting, sometimes informative, and occasionally salutary to look back at what's happened in the past.
It absolutely is, and thanks for a nice piece.
But whenever anyone produces a historical precedent argument, I am reminded of the xkcd cartoon.
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:
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)
1966 - Going from a narrow majority to a landslide had only happened once before; lightning doesn't strike twice. But it did this time. 1970 - You don't go from a working majority for one party to a working majority for the other party in a single election. Until Heath did it. 1974 (Feb) - It's only Labour that can narrowly win the vote but lose the election - until Heath's Tories copied them. 1974 (Oct) - Like 1964, I can't see much unusual in this one. 1979 - No-one's got a 5%+ swing since before World War 2, so the Tories aren't doing that... oh. 1983 - Converting a working majority to a landslide majority has only ever happened once before, so the chances of it happening in 1983 are tiny. 1987 - When you have a landslide majority of 100+, you don't retain it in the next election. Not since 1935 and that was after special circumstances in the preceding one. 1992 - A lead of over 7% ALWAYS gives a working majority. A party holding a landslide majority suffering a swing against it of only 2% (whilst racking up the highest vote score in history) also means they hold a working majority. Except they didn't. 1997 - A swing of around 5% is huge. 6%+ would be unprecedented outside wartime since 1935. A swing much above 7% would be practically impossible. Until Labour got a 10% swing. 2001 - Holding onto a huge landslide with a second landslide had only happened once before, and that was only JUST a 100+ majority second time. Except this time. 2005 - A 36% vote share doesn't translate into a big working majority. But this time it does. 2010 - A lead of 7%+ means you get a majority. Every time. Even in 1992, it gave a majority, even if it was too small to last a full term. Except this time it fell nearly 20 seats short. 2015 - The obliteration of non-SNP seats north of the border had never happened before. The SNP getting even close to a majority of Scottish seats (let alone almost ALL of them) was unprecedented. 2017 - You don't lose a huge polling lead just during the campaign. Campaigns famously don't change much. Until one did. 2019 - A big swing and a big majority towards a governing party who'd been in power for three terms already? Doesn't happen.
'Meanwhile, new analysis shows the doubling of the threshold means most people in large parts of the UK will no longer earn enough to live with a partner from abroad, creating a new north-south divide. Three-quarters of people can afford to bring a loved one from abroad, but under the new threshold, more than 60% will not be able to afford it, rising to 75% in the north-east of England.
People in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, east Midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland will be worst affected and the south-east will be least affected.
[...]
The government has left open the possibility that even families already living together in the UK under the existing rules could be split up or have to move abroad if they do not meet the new criteria when their visa comes up for renewal. The Home Office said it “will confirm more details in due course”.
Pardon my French, but I thought PBers who complained about immigration complained most about the Southeast and housing shortage etc. etc. there?
There's one thing I haven't quite understood about this idea of £38k being the minimum a couple needs to live on.
Is the state pension going to be raised to £19k per person? Did I miss that?
Alternatively you can have £62 500 in cash savings, held for 6 months instead of income.
That hasn't yet been raised in line with the income requirement, but might be soon.
'Meanwhile, new analysis shows the doubling of the threshold means most people in large parts of the UK will no longer earn enough to live with a partner from abroad, creating a new north-south divide. Three-quarters of people can afford to bring a loved one from abroad, but under the new threshold, more than 60% will not be able to afford it, rising to 75% in the north-east of England.
People in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, east Midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland will be worst affected and the south-east will be least affected.
[...]
The government has left open the possibility that even families already living together in the UK under the existing rules could be split up or have to move abroad if they do not meet the new criteria when their visa comes up for renewal. The Home Office said it “will confirm more details in due course”.
Pardon my French, but I thought PBers who complained about immigration complained most about the Southeast and housing shortage etc. etc. there?
There's one thing I haven't quite understood about this idea of £38k being the minimum a couple needs to live on.
Is the state pension going to be raised to £19k per person? Did I miss that?
Me neither. Perhaps it is to do with them paying for medical and social stuff, what with not being proper Brits in the view of the Tories, or something.
The new Tory criterion of Brits being "rich people"?
The old one used to be "white people".
I don't much like either.
I really hate to think what it is doing to the universities, for instance. Especially with this malicious reluctance to say whether existing families are still OK.
Look, 17.4 million people voted to send the forrin home. If they only earn £37k. It was literally on the ballot paper.
We also voted to keep old b*st*rds like me, tied to Blighty, and the NHS.
And get rid of the young, healthy, childless taxpaying workers.
There has to be some reason for it. Oh yes, prolonging the careers of Tory politicians ...
Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
I'll take your word for it.
At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
It's semantics. An axiom is, in one sense of 'law', a law - though perhaps the latter is sufficiently imprecise a term to be inappropriate in maths ?
I would say theorems are the mathematical equivalent to laws, and axioms are even more fundamental than that - perhaps the definitions that the laws need to state upfront in order to mean anything.
But anyway, laws are made to be broken, and mathematicians are generally not big fans of (for example) "exceptions that prove the rule".
Yes very much so. We (or I did 50 odd years ago) would deliberately find the exception specifically to prove the rule wrong so a saying that is an anathema to a mathematician.
'Meanwhile, new analysis shows the doubling of the threshold means most people in large parts of the UK will no longer earn enough to live with a partner from abroad, creating a new north-south divide. Three-quarters of people can afford to bring a loved one from abroad, but under the new threshold, more than 60% will not be able to afford it, rising to 75% in the north-east of England.
People in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, east Midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland will be worst affected and the south-east will be least affected.
[...]
The government has left open the possibility that even families already living together in the UK under the existing rules could be split up or have to move abroad if they do not meet the new criteria when their visa comes up for renewal. The Home Office said it “will confirm more details in due course”.
Pardon my French, but I thought PBers who complained about immigration complained most about the Southeast and housing shortage etc. etc. there?
There's one thing I haven't quite understood about this idea of £38k being the minimum a couple needs to live on.
Is the state pension going to be raised to £19k per person? Did I miss that?
Alternatively you can have £62 500 in cash savings, held for 6 months instead of income.
That hasn't yet been raised in line with the income requirement, but might be soon.
Thanks. In that case my question changes to - is the government going to give all pensioners a cash payment of £62,500 to enable them to survive?
Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
I'll take your word for it.
At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
It's semantics. An axiom is, in one sense of 'law', a law - though perhaps the latter is sufficiently imprecise a term to be inappropriate in maths ?
I would say theorems are the mathematical equivalent to laws, and axioms are even more fundamental than that - perhaps the definitions that the laws need to state upfront in order to mean anything.
But anyway, laws are made to be broken, and mathematicians are generally not big fans of (for example) "exceptions that prove the rule".
Yes very much so. We (or I did 50 odd years ago) would deliberately find the exception specifically to prove the rule wrong so a saying that is an anathema to a mathematician.
I think you're talking about the exceptions that disprove the rule, though.
'Meanwhile, new analysis shows the doubling of the threshold means most people in large parts of the UK will no longer earn enough to live with a partner from abroad, creating a new north-south divide. Three-quarters of people can afford to bring a loved one from abroad, but under the new threshold, more than 60% will not be able to afford it, rising to 75% in the north-east of England.
People in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, east Midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland will be worst affected and the south-east will be least affected.
[...]
The government has left open the possibility that even families already living together in the UK under the existing rules could be split up or have to move abroad if they do not meet the new criteria when their visa comes up for renewal. The Home Office said it “will confirm more details in due course”.
Pardon my French, but I thought PBers who complained about immigration complained most about the Southeast and housing shortage etc. etc. there?
There's one thing I haven't quite understood about this idea of £38k being the minimum a couple needs to live on.
Is the state pension going to be raised to £19k per person? Did I miss that?
Me neither. Perhaps it is to do with them paying for medical and social stuff, what with not being proper Brits in the view of the Tories, or something.
The new Tory criterion of Brits being "rich people"?
The old one used to be "white people".
I don't much like either.
I really hate to think what it is doing to the universities, for instance. Especially with this malicious reluctance to say whether existing families are still OK.
Look, 17.4 million people voted to send the forrin home. If they only earn £37k. It was literally on the ballot paper.
We also voted to keep old b*st*rds like me, tied to Blighty, and the NHS.
And get rid of the young, healthy, childless taxpaying workers.
There has to be some reason for it. Oh yes, prolonging the careers of Tory politicians ...
Selling Brexit as a means to rid ourselves of Eastern European job thiefs wasn't as clever as it seemed.
Those who came often rocked up alone. Those who stayed sometimes did so because of relationships they made with indigenous residents and others stayed until they had a mortgage deposit for their lifetime home back in Poland and Hungary, paying taxes and fuelling our economy whilst they were here. The churn gave us a net figure of about 15% of what we are seeing today. If we take out HK and Ukraine around 30% of the current net figure. It wasn't broken, it got fixed and now it's broken.
Brexit really is the gift that keeps giving. No wonder Rishi's speech yesterday highlighted his detestation of foreigners.
"...source confirmed reversal came at Sunak’s request shorty after Grant Shapps replaced Ben Wallace. "
It will be interesting to see whether Labour goes on the offensive or if Starmer fancies flying about the place too.
Starmer ought to say he won't use private jets or helicopters unless it's an emergency situation.
tbh I find it hard to care about helicopters. If we want the Prime Minister to travel round the country, helicopter is probably more efficient than train or a whole convoy of cars up the motorway. On the other hand, there is not much point in the PM leaving London if it is only for photo-ops.
I've just watched the full Mone/Barrowman interview from this morning. Wow. 30 minutes of self-pitying, self-serving justification at the end of which they want us to feel sorry for them because of press intrusion and social media vilification.
Should we feel sorry for them? One phone call to Gove from the Baroness led inexorably to PPE contracts worth £202m on which Barrowman admitted the profit was £61M. 30% profit on a government contract at a time of need strikes me as grotesque even if all the goods supplied were fine. A new company (PPE Medpro) set up which completely disguised Mone/Barrowman's involvement in it, even in Companies House data etc. Then they persistently lied about their involvement. And they base themselves in the Isle of Man to, they say, avoid publicity. Now they're panicking.
'Meanwhile, new analysis shows the doubling of the threshold means most people in large parts of the UK will no longer earn enough to live with a partner from abroad, creating a new north-south divide. Three-quarters of people can afford to bring a loved one from abroad, but under the new threshold, more than 60% will not be able to afford it, rising to 75% in the north-east of England.
People in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, east Midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland will be worst affected and the south-east will be least affected.
[...]
The government has left open the possibility that even families already living together in the UK under the existing rules could be split up or have to move abroad if they do not meet the new criteria when their visa comes up for renewal. The Home Office said it “will confirm more details in due course”.
Pardon my French, but I thought PBers who complained about immigration complained most about the Southeast and housing shortage etc. etc. there?
There's one thing I haven't quite understood about this idea of £38k being the minimum a couple needs to live on.
Is the state pension going to be raised to £19k per person? Did I miss that?
Me neither. Perhaps it is to do with them paying for medical and social stuff, what with not being proper Brits in the view of the Tories, or something.
The new Tory criterion of Brits being "rich people"?...
Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
I'll take your word for it.
At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
It's semantics. An axiom is, in one sense of 'law', a law - though perhaps the latter is sufficiently imprecise a term to be inappropriate in maths ?
I would say theorems are the mathematical equivalent to laws, and axioms are even more fundamental than that - perhaps the definitions that the laws need to state upfront in order to mean anything.
But anyway, laws are made to be broken, and mathematicians are generally not big fans of (for example) "exceptions that prove the rule".
Yes very much so. We (or I did 50 odd years ago) would deliberately find the exception specifically to prove the rule wrong so a saying that is an anathema to a mathematician.
I think you're talking about the exceptions that disprove the rule, though.
'The exception that proves the rule' doesn't mean what most people think it means.
The phrase comes from the old-fashioned sense of the word prove meaning 'test' (see also 'the proof of the pudding').So it really means 'the exception that tests the rule' - i.e. "I am testing whether your rule works with this exceprtion I can think of - and, by implication, finding that it doesn't" - or, as we might say nowadays = 'the exception that disproves the rule'.
Basically 'that's the exception that proves the rule' means 'the rule doesn't work.'
Ian Wright us stepping down from Match of the Day. Can it be hoped that the ghastly Lineker will leave too.?
That is a shame. I rather like Ian Wright. He wears his heart on his sleeve, which I rather like.
Re Lineker - He is rather good at his job. What is your objection? Is it the money he costs or the fact that he tweaks the noses of politicians or that you don't think he should be allowed to while presenting on BBC? They seem to be the main reasons people object to him. Haven't seen anyone complain about the fact that he does a good job.
Afaiac his stance on political manners are in conflict with his job at the BBC. If he isn't working g fir the BBC he can say whst he wants. He won't leave the BBC because noone will bother about what he says snd his followers and therefore his influence such as it is will diminish considerably. QED
Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
I'll take your word for it.
At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
It's semantics. An axiom is, in one sense of 'law', a law - though perhaps the latter is sufficiently imprecise a term to be inappropriate in maths ?
I would say theorems are the mathematical equivalent to laws, and axioms are even more fundamental than that - perhaps the definitions that the laws need to state upfront in order to mean anything.
But anyway, laws are made to be broken, and mathematicians are generally not big fans of (for example) "exceptions that prove the rule".
Yes very much so. We (or I did 50 odd years ago) would deliberately find the exception specifically to prove the rule wrong so a saying that is an anathema to a mathematician.
I think you're talking about the exceptions that disprove the rule, though.
'The exception that proves the rule' doesn't mean what most people think it means.
The phrase comes from the old-fashioned sense of the word prove meaning 'test' (see also 'the proof of the pudding').So it really means 'the exception that tests the rule' - i.e. "I am testing whether your rule works with this exceprtion I can think of - and, by implication, finding that it doesn't" - or, as we might say nowadays = 'the exception that disproves the rule'.
Basically 'that's the exception that proves the rule' means 'the rule doesn't work.'
'Meanwhile, new analysis shows the doubling of the threshold means most people in large parts of the UK will no longer earn enough to live with a partner from abroad, creating a new north-south divide. Three-quarters of people can afford to bring a loved one from abroad, but under the new threshold, more than 60% will not be able to afford it, rising to 75% in the north-east of England.
People in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, east Midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland will be worst affected and the south-east will be least affected.
[...]
The government has left open the possibility that even families already living together in the UK under the existing rules could be split up or have to move abroad if they do not meet the new criteria when their visa comes up for renewal. The Home Office said it “will confirm more details in due course”.
Pardon my French, but I thought PBers who complained about immigration complained most about the Southeast and housing shortage etc. etc. there?
I was expecting the article to be by @NickPalmer given the headline...
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.
Your thesis is that historical precedent (or lack thereof) trumps polling. I am sceptical. I think polling trumps historical precedent.
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.
That's true but it is often interesting, sometimes informative, and occasionally salutary to look back at what's happened in the past.
It absolutely is, and thanks for a nice piece.
But whenever anyone produces a historical precedent argument, I am reminded of the xkcd cartoon.
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:
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)
1922 - Labour came second in 1918 if you remember the couponed Liberals were in effect elected with Unionist support.
1935 - if you're starting the comparisons after 1918, why are the previous ones in there at all?
1955 - wasn't true of 1900. Or 1865. And if you were talking of later, actually incumbent governments frequently do increase their majorities.
Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
I'll take your word for it.
At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
Oh for once something I know about. A theorem in mathematics is derived or to be derived. Only Axioms are assumptions of which there are very very few in maths.
What was the "pons asinorum"? An axiom, law or conjecture or lemma?
Comments
Do we really want to see Conservative politicians, their families and friends receiving custodial sentences? The prisons are already overcrowded!
The next election can be different now Ben. For most elections in your life the top 3 parties had most the votes - even in 1997 others only managed 6.5.
Labour 43.2%
Conservative 30.7%
Liberal Democrat 16.8%
Referendum 2.6%
Scottish National 2.0%
Others 1.9%
Yesterday’s Opinium had 21% outside the Big 3.
Start of last election, Con+UKIP was 50+ something, and Tories pulled a master stroke eating nearly all the UKIP and adding to their own score. Boris and Cummings pulled the rug from under Farage and made him spit blood. Things are different now, no Boris, Farage wanting revenge, no Corbyn.
I still think history will call 2024 a Brexit election, but not a get Brexit done, or defend Brexit election, now with Corbyn out the way this is the first time Remainia can give Tories a proper electoral kicking for Brexit.
Prof Curtice piece in this weekends Independent feels if Tory’s do very well getting don’t knows on board they can have 200 seats. Otherwise it could be 150.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-rwanda-tories-labour-election-polls-b2464856.html
Electoral Calculus is a uniform swingomter? Have to expect some anti Tory tactical voting on top of the numbers it gives you when the LLG is 55+. PBers pointed me to this one as building in tactical voting. https://sotn.newstatesman.com
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)
1970 - You don't go from a working majority for one party to a working majority for the other party in a single election. Until Heath did it.
1974 (Feb) - It's only Labour that can narrowly win the vote but lose the election - until Heath's Tories copied them.
1974 (Oct) - Like 1964, I can't see much unusual in this one.
1979 - No-one's got a 5%+ swing since before World War 2, so the Tories aren't doing that... oh.
1983 - Converting a working majority to a landslide majority has only ever happened once before, so the chances of it happening in 1983 are tiny.
1987 - When you have a landslide majority of 100+, you don't retain it in the next election. Not since 1935 and that was after special circumstances in the preceding one.
1992 - A lead of over 7% ALWAYS gives a working majority. A party holding a landslide majority suffering a swing against it of only 2% (whilst racking up the highest vote score in history) also means they hold a working majority. Except they didn't.
1997 - A swing of around 5% is huge. 6%+ would be unprecedented outside wartime since 1935. A swing much above 7% would be practically impossible. Until Labour got a 10% swing.
2001 - Holding onto a huge landslide with a second landslide had only happened once before, and that was only JUST a 100+ majority second time. Except this time.
2005 - A 36% vote share doesn't translate into a big working majority. But this time it does.
2010 - A lead of 7%+ means you get a majority. Every time. Even in 1992, it gave a majority, even if it was too small to last a full term. Except this time it fell nearly 20 seats short.
2015 - The obliteration of non-SNP seats north of the border had never happened before. The SNP getting even close to a majority of Scottish seats (let alone almost ALL of them) was unprecedented.
2017 - You don't lose a huge polling lead just during the campaign. Campaigns famously don't change much. Until one did.
2019 - A big swing and a big majority towards a governing party who'd been in power for three terms already? Doesn't happen.
(2/2)
That hasn't yet been raised in line with the income requirement, but might be soon.
There has to be some reason for it. Oh yes, prolonging the careers of Tory politicians ...
‘Prison or bullet’: new Argentina government promises harsh response to protest
President Javier Milei and his allies are preparing new security guidelines in anticipation of protests against currency devaluation
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/17/argentina-president-javier-milei-security-guidelines-protests-currency-devaluation
Those who came often rocked up alone. Those who stayed sometimes did so because of relationships they made with indigenous residents and others stayed until they had a mortgage deposit for their lifetime home back in Poland and Hungary, paying taxes and fuelling our economy whilst they were here. The churn gave us a net figure of about 15% of what we are seeing today. If we take out HK and Ukraine around 30% of the current net figure. It wasn't broken, it got fixed and now it's broken.
Brexit really is the gift that keeps giving. No wonder Rishi's speech yesterday highlighted his detestation of foreigners.
Should we feel sorry for them? One phone call to Gove from the Baroness led inexorably to PPE contracts worth £202m on which Barrowman admitted the profit was £61M. 30% profit on a government contract at a time of need strikes me as grotesque even if all the goods supplied were fine. A new company (PPE Medpro) set up which completely disguised Mone/Barrowman's involvement in it, even in Companies House data etc. Then they persistently lied about their involvement. And they base themselves in the Isle of Man to, they say, avoid publicity. Now they're panicking.
So no, I don't feel sorry for them.
Even worse: rich old people
NEW THREAD
The phrase comes from the old-fashioned sense of the word prove meaning 'test' (see also 'the proof of the pudding').So it really means 'the exception that tests the rule' - i.e. "I am testing whether your rule works with this exceprtion I can think of - and, by implication, finding that it doesn't" - or, as we might say nowadays = 'the exception that disproves the rule'.
Basically 'that's the exception that proves the rule' means 'the rule doesn't work.'
influence such as it is will diminish considerably. QED
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
1935 - if you're starting the comparisons after 1918, why are the previous ones in there at all?
1955 - wasn't true of 1900. Or 1865. And if you were talking of later, actually incumbent governments frequently do increase their majorities.
An axiom, law or conjecture or lemma?